Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 469 (GAU)

Ranadhir Adhikary v. State of Assam

2018-03-19

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S. Upadhay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. D. Das Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and Mr. S.P Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 2. The father of the petitioner, who served as an Assistant Teacher in Baruapara Government MV School, Dhubri, died in harness on 25.02.2012. On his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 17.05.2012. The said application apparently was filed on time. When nothing was done on the said application for compassionate appointment, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court being WP (C) No.671/2015, which was disposed of by the order of 03.05.2017 requiring the respondent authorities to place the application of the petitioner before the concerned DLC. 3. It is stated that although the said order was passed on 03.05.2017, but the authorities in the meantime had already placed the application of the petitioner before the DLC of Dhubri district and by the resolution dated 26.05.2016, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the recommendation could not be made as the two years validity period of the application is already over. 4. It is not understood as to from where the DLC came to a conclusion that the law provides that there is a validity of two years for an application for compassionate appointment. The law regarding compassionate appointment has been settled by this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das & ors vs. State of Assam & ors, reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674 and Faziron Nessa and others vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340, and nowhere in the said two judgments, there is a provision that an application for compassionate appointment would remain valid for a period of two years. All that is provided in the said two decisions is that in the event, an application for compassionate appointment could not be recommended due to lack of vacancies for two years, in such event, the application would lose its force. In order to arrive at a conclusion that the recommendation could not be given due to lack of vacancy, there is also a requirement of the DLC to give a consideration and arrive at a conclusion that there was no such vacancy. In order to arrive at a conclusion that the recommendation could not be given due to lack of vacancy, there is also a requirement of the DLC to give a consideration and arrive at a conclusion that there was no such vacancy. Only when such exercise is undertaken and the satisfaction be arrived that there was no such vacancy, thereafter the DLC may not consider the application any further after two years. 5. But the same principle is not applicable in a case where an application for compassionate appointment was ignored and no such consideration given for a period of two years and thereafter the authorities falls back on the said provisions of this Courts order and reject the petitioner by saying that the validity of the application had expired after two years. 6. In view of the above, the rejection of the petitioner by the minutes dated 26.05.2016 is set aside and the DLC, Dhubri is directed that the application of the petitioner be again considered in the next available DLC on its own merit and pass a reasoned order thereon. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.