Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 881 (GAU)

Jahirul Islam Choudhury v. State Of Assam

2019-08-07

N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : N. Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Mr. B. Deuri, learned Government Advocate, Assam and Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for Respondent No.5. 2. This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his application for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. The petitioner's father died on 5.9.2008 while serving as an Assistant Teacher. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for his appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. However as the respondent authorities have not taken any step for consideration of the case of the petitioner, the present petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his case for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. 3. It seems that the Respondent No.5, who is the sister of the petitioner, also filed an application for her appointment under the die-in-harness scheme and the case of the said Respondent No.5 has also been rejected. Be that as it may, it is for the competent authority to consider the suitability or eligibility of the claim for appointment under the scheme. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the private Respondent No.5 that the case of the petitioner was rejected by the DLC in the meeting held on 31.12.2018. 5. Perused the proceedings of the DLC meeting and on a perusal of the same, it is found that the case of the petitioner was rejected mainly on two grounds. Firstly, at the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was a minor and, thereafter, the petitioner's sister also filed an application. The DLC considered the fact of double applications from the same family and secondly on the ground that since the petitioner submitted his application belatedly, it was rejected. 6. From the above, it is evident that the DLC considered the fact that there were two applications by two different persons, namely, the petitioner and his sister for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme and it is because of this, the DLC was not keen to entertain the application. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Respondent No.5 had in the meantime got married and, as such, she is living separately and would not be entitled to be considered for appointment under the scheme. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Respondent No.5 had in the meantime got married and, as such, she is living separately and would not be entitled to be considered for appointment under the scheme. 7. This is a crucial issue which was not considered by the DLC and, accordingly, the matter is remanded to the DLC for re-consideration and if it is found that the Respondent No.5 is not eligible for appointment under the scheme, the case of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground of double application. 8. As regards the issue of delay, it may be noted that this Court had already held in W.P.(C) No.4804 of 2016 Trailokya Nath Vs. State of Assam and others, (2016) 5 GauLT 310 that the time limit laid down under the guidelines is not mandatory but directory in nature and, hence, the authority should not take a stringent view. Accordingly, it is also directed the case of the petitioner may not be rejected merely on the ground of delay. 9. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.