Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 784 (GAU)

ROMIZUL HOQUE KAZI v. STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE

2018-05-11

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department as well as Mr. K. Nayak, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 4. 2. The father of the petitioner who was working as an Assistant Teacher in the No. 209 Koroikandi Maktab L.P. School, Cachar, died in harness on 14.01.2013. On his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 05.01.2004. The said application ordinarily ought to have been placed before the concerned DLC immediately. But for laches on the part of the respondent authority, the same was not placed. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of WP (C) No. 534/2007 and by the order dated 07.02.2007 in the said writ petition; a direction was issued to do the needful as regards the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. Although the said direction was issued in the year 2007, but the respondent authorities placed the claim of the petitioner before the concerned DLC in its meeting held on 09.06.2014. There is a delay of almost 10 years on the part of the respondent authorities in placing the application of the petitioner before concerned DLC and if any delay had occurred which may require non-consideration of the claim of the petitioner, the same is due to the fault of the respondent authorities and not because of the fault of the petitioner. 4. In aforesaid circumstance, the claim of the petitioner was placed before the DLC of Cachar district on 23.12.2014. The DLC evaluated that there are 91 vacancies for L. P. School Teachers and therefore 5% thereof was calculated to be 5 vacancies which were available for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner along with four other persons were recommended by the DLC of Cachar as Assistant Teachers for L. P. Schools. 5. But the SLC in its meeting held on 16.06.2016, rejected the claim of the petitioner by stating the ground of being under qualified/lack of vacancy/ lack of valid documents. The rejection does not clearly states as to whether the rejection was because of all the three reasons or because of any of them. 6. In such circumstances, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of WP (C) No. 6906/2016. The rejection does not clearly states as to whether the rejection was because of all the three reasons or because of any of them. 6. In such circumstances, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of WP (C) No. 6906/2016. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 02.02.2017, whereby the respondent authorities were directed to again place the recommendation of the DLC, Cachar before the SLC. When the matter was placed before the SLC, again the SLC in its meeting held on 20.07.2017 rejected the case of the petitioner by stating "Old case. Scheme does not apply." 7. Mr. K. Nayak, learned Senior Government Advocate has produced the communication dated 24.04.2018 of Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Elementary Education Department which indicates that the SLC had rejected the claim of the petitioner for being an old case. 8. The law in this respect has already 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, wherein no such ground of being rejected for being an old case is provided. What is provided in the aforesaid two pronouncements is that in the event a claim for compassionate appointment was considered but could not be recommended because of lack of vacancy and in the meantime 2 years had elapsed, such claims need not be considered again. 9. In the view of this Court, the provisions provided by this Court in the aforesaid two judgments have been misconstrued by the respondents. On one hand, the respondent authorities did not give any consideration of the application of the petitioner for ten years by placing the same before the DLC and on the other hand, when time for consideration came, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by stating it to be an old case. In such view of the matter, the ground of rejection in the minutes of the SLC dated 20.07.2017 is unsustainable and accordingly rejected. 10. Accordingly, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Elementary Education Department shall do the needful to place the recommendation of the DLC dated 23.12.2014 made in favour of the petitioner before the next available SLC for an appropriate consideration. 10. Accordingly, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Elementary Education Department shall do the needful to place the recommendation of the DLC dated 23.12.2014 made in favour of the petitioner before the next available SLC for an appropriate consideration. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. The said communication the communication dated 24.04.2018 produced by Mr. K. Nayak, learned Senior Government Advocate is kept on record.