Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 854 (GAU)

Diptimoni Borah v. State of Assam

2014-09-06

N.CHAUDHURY

body2014
ORDER (ORAL) By this joint application, petitioners, namely, Diptimoni Borah and Pranab Jyoti Saikia have challenged action of the authorities for not giving them appointment on compassionate ground. Atul Borah, father of petitioner No. 1, namely, Diptimoni Borah was a Gram Sevak in the Office of the Choyduar Development Block in the district of Sonitpur, Assam. He died on 25.02.2013. There was no earning member in the family and consequently the family fell in undeserved want. Petitioner No. 1 was a student of 3 (three) years degree course at that time. Immediately after appearing for B.A. Examination, petitioner No. 1 filed an application praying for her compassionate appointment under the department as Grade III employee. Similarly petitioner No. 2, namely, Pranab Jyoti Saikia happens to be son of Late Prabin Saikia who was a Gram Sevak in Pub Choyduar Development Block under Sonitpur district, Assam. Prabin Saikia, the father of petitioner No. 2 died on 23.11.2013 leaving the family in helpless condition. At that time petitioner No. 2, Pranab Jyoti Saikia was a student of three years degree course. He also immediately after appearing at the examination, filed an application before the appropriate authority praying for compassionate appointment in view of death of his father in harness. 2. The authority after consideration of applications, filed by both the petitioners, forwarded the respective cases to the District Level Committee for consideration for compassionate appointment. The District Level Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DLC) considered the testimonials of the petitioners including their graduation certificates. It may be noted here that the results for three years degree course examination had been announced in the mean time and petitioners came out successful. Having found that petitioners are in need of appointment under the scheme for compassionate appointment and that their prayers came within the quota of 5% vacancies and having found that both the petitioners being graduate have required educational qualifications for being appointed, the District Level Committee (DLC) adopted resolution in their favour and recommended the records to the State Level Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SLC) for consideration of appointments. This was done on 21.09.2013. The minutes of the DLC meeting held on 21.09.2013 has been produced before this Court by the respondents by filing affidavit-in-opposition. 3. This was done on 21.09.2013. The minutes of the DLC meeting held on 21.09.2013 has been produced before this Court by the respondents by filing affidavit-in-opposition. 3. The State Level Committee (SLC) considered the representations of the present petitioners on 01.02.2014 and turned down their prayers on the ground that as on the date of filing applications, none of the petitioners were qualified. This is because as on the date of filing applications, petitioners were not graduates but had only appeared at B.A. examination. The resolution of the SLC has been placed at Annexure-II of the affidavit-in-opposition. The only reason recorded by the SLC is that qualification for Grade-III is to graduation in any stream vide notification dated 15.11.2011 and the candidates had submitted applications on 20.04.2013 and 03.05.2013 respectively when they were not graduates. Accordingly, they were held ineligible. 4. It is needless to say that there was no advertisement for the post for which the petitioners had made prayer for their appointment. Reason for filing application arose only consequent to death of their respective father who died untimely death leaving their families in helpless condition. The petitioners have no means of income to come out of the distress falling on them. The Government which framed a scheme for helping such victims of premature deaths cannot take hyper-technical stand in depriving applicants from getting the benefit of the scheme. Here is a case where the DLC considered the candidatures of the petitioners and found them eligible as on the date. The consideration was made by the DLC that both the petitioners were graduates. There is no rule showing that as on the date of the application praying for compassionate appointment, the candidate should be a graduate. But present petitioners were graduates as on the date. Their candidature was considered by the DLC. There is no doubt that if the SLC would have upheld the recommendation of the DLC and an appointment order would have issued to the petitioners then they would have joined as Grade III employee and as on that date it would not have been open to hold that they are not qualified. 5. There is no doubt that if the SLC would have upheld the recommendation of the DLC and an appointment order would have issued to the petitioners then they would have joined as Grade III employee and as on that date it would not have been open to hold that they are not qualified. 5. In the case in hand, the DLC is the first authority to examine the eligibility criteria of the candidates and admittedly as on date of such consideration, the petitioners were graduates and so they were eligible for appointment in Grade III posts in the State of Assam. Having so found, the impugned decision of the SLC cannot be upheld. The SLC shall re-consider the cases of the petitioners in the light of observations made hereinabove and shall pass necessary orders within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 6. Writ petition is allowed. 7. No order as to costs.