Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 155 (GAU)

Safiqul Islam v. State of Assam

2018-01-29

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J. 1. Heard Mr. H.R Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.M.T Chisti, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department and Ms. D. Das Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 6. Considering the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, notice at present need not be issued to the respondent No. 7. 2. The father of the petitioner, who was serving as a Hindi Teacher in the Kahibari Mahamilan ME School, died in harness on 02.03.2008. Upon his death, his wife namely, Nur Begum had submitted an application for compassionate appointment, but as it appears, the same was not given a due consideration under the law. Be that as it may, the petitioner, who was a minor at the time of death of his father, had submitted another application on 18.09.2017 for compassionate appointment upon attaining majority. This writ petition has been preferred on the grievance that the said application of the petitioner of 18.09.2017 had not been given a consideration by the respondent authorities. 3. The law in this respect has been settled by this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das & ors v. State of Assam & ors, reported in 2006(4) GLT 674 and Faziron Nessa and others v. State of Assam and others, reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340, wherein it is held that it is incumbent upon the respondent authorities to place any application for compassionate appointment before the concerned DLC. 4. A further objection has been raised by Ms. D. Das Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate and Mr. S.M.T. Chisti, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department that the death of the father had occurred in the year 2008, whereas this application has been made in the year 2017. 5. It is noticed that at the time of the death of the father, the petitioner was a minor and therefore, he could not have applied for compassionate appointment. But upon attaining majority, the petitioner had submitted the application on 18.09.2017. 5. It is noticed that at the time of the death of the father, the petitioner was a minor and therefore, he could not have applied for compassionate appointment. But upon attaining majority, the petitioner had submitted the application on 18.09.2017. The law in this respect has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195 , wherein in a similar circumstance, a view was taken that where the application for compassionate appointment of the widow submitted within the prescribed period was rejected without any reason, the subsequent application by a person, who was a minor at that relevant point of time, has to be considered as per its own merit and the same cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the said application was made after a considerable period of time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was also of the view that it was a fit case where the application therein should have been considered in place of the widow of the concerned deceased. 6. In view of the aforesaid provisions of law, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents, more particularly, the respondent No. 3 being the Director of Elementary Education, Assam and the respondent No. 6 being the Chairman of the District Level Selection Committee for Barpeta district to place the said application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment made on 18.09.2017 before the next available DLC of Barpeta district. However, as this order is passed in the motion stage itself, it is also provided that in the event the said application of 18.09.2017 was given a consideration by the DLC, the result thereof shall be communicated to the petitioner. 7. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.