Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 646 (GAU)

Ajit Pator v. State of Assam

2008-09-02

RANJAN GOGOI

body2008
JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. Heard Sri S.K. Medhi, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri U.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education. 2. In view of the subject matter involved, the writ petition is being disposed of at the motion stage. 3. The eight Petitioners, who have joined together in this writ petition are aggrieved by the non-consideration of their cases for compassionate appointment by the District Level Selection Committee of Morigaon District in the meeting held on 26.11.2007. According to the Petitioners, their cases had remained pending at a stage when the order of this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das and Ors. v. State of Assam reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674 came to be rendered. According to the Petitioners, by virtue of the first direction contained in paragraph 7 in the aforesaid judgment, as a one time-measure, all applications pending were required to be considered. However, the District Level Selection Committee did not consider the cases of the Petitioners on the ground that their cases had remained pending for over two years and, therefore, were not required to be so considered in terms of Direction No. (X) contained in the aforesaid paragraph 7 of the judgment. 4. The Director of Elementary Education has filed an affidavit wherein in paragraph 9, the Director has admitted that the cases of the Petitioners were not considered as their applications had remained pending for more than two years. According to the Director, such non-consideration was fully justified in view of the directions of this Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra). 5. The judgment of this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das (supra), particularly, the directions contained in paragraph 7 of the aforesaid judgment has been read and considered by the Court. The Directions No. I and X, which would be relevant for consideration are extracted herein below: I. All pending applications against existing and available vacancies as per the quota earmarked including the cases of the Petitioners in the present cases and all Ors., who may not be before the Court, shall be decided in accordance with the proposed directions to be laid down in the present order and also in accordance with the principles noted in the preceding paragraphs of this order. This will be done within a period of 4 (four) months from today. This will be done within a period of 4 (four) months from today. The present direction naturally has to be considered as a one-time measure in view of the subsequent direction as laid down in the succeeding paragraphs. X. If the applications of eligible candidates remain pending and cannot be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of (two) years from the date of making such applications, all such applications will require no further consideration and must be understood to have spent their force. 6. Reading the aforesaid two directions issued by the Court, it clearly appears that as a one-time measure all pending cases were required to be considered in accordance with the other specific directions contained in paragraph 7 of the judgment. Once consideration of a case as a one-time measure is over, such applications that may remain pending are not required to be considered, if a period of more than two years had elapsed. 7. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the District Level Selection Committee was justified in refusing to consider the cases of the Petitioners. Such cases were required to be considered along with all other pending cases as a one-time measure which has not been done in the present case. 8. Consequently, the Court is of the view that this writ petition should be disposed of with the direction for due consideration of the cases of the Petitioners in the next meeting of the District Level Selection Committee of Morigaon District. 9. Writ Petition consequently is disposed of in terms of the above.