Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 835 (GAU)

MD. MEHMOD AKANDA v. STATE OF ASSAM

2018-05-21

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. B Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department and Mr. S Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 being the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon. 2. The father of the petitioner who was working as an Assistant Teacher in Sogunbahi LP School died in harness on 26.07.2011. On his death, the petitioner who had the qualification of HSSLC passed, had submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 20.09.2011. The said application was placed before the DLC of Morigaon district in its meeting held on 23.04.2012 and the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of not having the requisite percentage of marks. 3. It is taken note of that as the father of the petitioner was an Assistant Teacher in the concerned school, the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was also processed by the respondent authorities to be an application for the post of Assistant Teacher. Accordingly, the DLC considered the claim of the petitioner to be a claim for the post of Assistant Teacher and passed its order that the petitioner does not have the requisite qualification. It is stated that thereafter the petitioner had redone his qualifying examination and had secured 51% marks. Thereupon, the DLC again considered the claim of the petitioner and had rejected the same by stating that it was earlier considered. 4. Be that as it may, an application for compassionate appointment is made against any available vacant post to which the applicant may be qualified for, it does not matter what post the deceased person was holding and it also does not matter to which post the petitioner makes an indication that he desires to be considered for the post of Assistant Teacher. The fact as to what post the deceased was holding and the indication by the applicant as regards the post applied is merely an indication of his desire and it does not mean that the DLC will consider such application only against the post indicated therein i.e. Assistant Teacher in the present case. 5. Under the law, the authorities are required to consider the claim for compassionate appointment against any available vacant post to which the applicant may be duly qualified for. 5. Under the law, the authorities are required to consider the claim for compassionate appointment against any available vacant post to which the applicant may be duly qualified for. In such view of the matter, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the DLC dated 23.04.2012 on the ground that the petitioner does not have the required percentage of marks is found to be unacceptable, inasmuch as, the said consideration was only in respect of the post of Assistant Teacher. As the earlier rejection is found to be not as per law, the subsequent rejection stating that his case cannot be considered any further is found to be unacceptable. Accordingly, the DEEO Morigaon shall again place the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner filed on 20.09.2011 before the next DLC of Morigaon, who shall give a fresh consideration to the same against any available vacant post to which the petitioner may be duly qualified for. 6. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.