Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1472 (GAU)

Bazrul Hussain v. State of Assam

2017-11-27

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.P. Borah, learned Standing Counsel for the Health Department as well as Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent-authorities. 2. The father of the petitioner, who was serving as a Peon in the office of the Joint Director, Health Services, Dhubri died in harness on 4.10.2009. The petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment and the DLC in its meeting held on 17.8.2011 had recommended the case of the petitioner. At that stage, a writ petition was preferred by the petitioner being WP(C) No. 3404/2016, which was disposed of by the order dated 5.12.2016 requiring the respondent-authorities to place the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner before the next available SLC. 3. Thereafter, a speaking order dated 24.4.2017 was passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department, wherein it was stated that the case of the petitioner was placed before the SLC held on 27.11.2015, but the SLC had rejected the case of the petitioner. 4. A perusal of the Minutes of the SLC of 27.11.2015 shows that the case of the petitioner was rejected by the SLC on the ground that he could not be selected as there are no further vacancies. Against such reason of rejection by the SLC, when the recommendation of the DLC is considered, it is noticed that the DLC had recommended the petitioner for a Grade-IV post and the vacancy was indicated to the extent that the recommendation was against a post sanctioned vide HLP.III/69/pt/23 dated 8.6.1974 MPH 30/61/53 dated 26.4.1966. When the DLC had recommended the case of the petitioner against the specific vacancy, it is not understood as to how the SLC can reject the case of the petitioner by merely providing that he could not be selected as there are no further vacancies. Such a reason on the part of the SLC appears to be contrary and amounts to a non-consideration of the recommendation of the DLC in its appropriate perspective. 5. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the SLC for a fresh consideration by considering the case of the petitioner against the recommendation by the DLC in its meeting dated 17.8.2011, wherein the vacancy against which the recommendation had been made had also been specified. 5. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the SLC for a fresh consideration by considering the case of the petitioner against the recommendation by the DLC in its meeting dated 17.8.2011, wherein the vacancy against which the recommendation had been made had also been specified. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner be placed before the next available SLC. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.