Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 195 (GAU)

Babitanath v. State of Assam

2014-02-17

K.SREEDHAR RAO, P.K.SAIKIA

body2014
ORDER : K. Sreedhar Rao, J. Heard Sri K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.K. Nair, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. One Pramod Chandra Nath, who was working as grade IV staff at the Barpeta chief judicial magistrate, has died in harness. Petitioner, who is wife of the deceased, made an application for appointment on compassionate basis. The said request was referred to the district-level committee, which rejected the request for want of vacancy in view of a circular of the state Government prescribing only 5% of the existing vacancy to be made on compassionate basis. 3. In the present case it was found by the committee that there was no vacancy in the 5% quota. 4. The procedure and practise of giving appointment on compassionate grounds appears to be a bizarre one. Article 235 of the Constitution of India, empowers the High Court with all the jurisdiction over the subordinate courts which includes appointment and promotion of ministerial staff, apart from judicial officer. 5. In case of appointment on compassionate ground, the intervention of the authorities of the executive would be totally unnecessary; it is in conflict with the powers of the High Court, under Article 235 of the Constitution. 6. In case of direct recruitment and promotion of the ministerial staff in the district judiciary, it is done only by the District Judge and the Chief Judicial Magistrate: the question of intervention by the executive does not arise. 7. A division Bench of this Court in Bipul Kumar Vs. State of Assam and others, 2007 (2) GLT 51, has scrupulously referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Nripendra Nath Bagchi, and R.M. Gurjar Vs. High Court of Gujarat, AIR 1966 SC 447 , and held that under Article 235 of the Constitution, the High Court alone is vested with the jurisdiction to deal with the matter of appointment and service conditions of judicial officer, and ministerial and subordinate staff in the district judiciary. Therefore, the question of appointment on compassionate grounds being referred to district-level committees and the state-level committee will not be proper. The guidelines laid by this Court in Bipul Kumar Vs. State of Assam and others, 2007 (2) GLT 51 will apply only to civil servants working under the executive, and not those working under the control of the judiciary. Therefore, the question of appointment on compassionate grounds being referred to district-level committees and the state-level committee will not be proper. The guidelines laid by this Court in Bipul Kumar Vs. State of Assam and others, 2007 (2) GLT 51 will apply only to civil servants working under the executive, and not those working under the control of the judiciary. It is, therefore, made clear that in case of compassionate appointment, the District Judge, or the Chief Judicial Magistrate, upon receipt of applications, shall consider the request and send the proposals to the High Court. Registry shall place the matter before concerned administrative Judge and, later on, before Hon'ble Chief Justice for necessary orders. 8. This procedure is required in order to obviate any of the improprieties and/or illegalities in making appointment on compassionate grounds. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 10. Registry to place the order before Chief Justice and communicate the order to the District Judges and the Chief Judicial Magistrates in the State.