Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 752 (GAU)

Pranita Das v. State Of Assam

2020-11-10

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2020
JUDGMENT Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. - Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The husband of the petitioner Late Ratul Das worked as a constable under the Administrative Control of the Commandant, 4th Assam Police Task Force Battalion, Howly, Barpeta and he died in harness on 19.11.2009. On his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 07.02.2010. Apparently, the application was submitted within a period of one year from the death of the person concerned and therefore, it was within time. 3. The application of the petitioner was placed before the DLC, Barpeta in its meeting dated 19.07.2014. In the meeting, the DLC evaluated the vacancy position in the office of the 4th APTF, Bn. Howly and arrived at a conclusion that for the year 2010-11 i.e. when the application was submitted by the petitioner, there exist 12 vacant posts of Grade-IV and out of the 12 posts, it was concluded that one post was for compassionate appointment. The minutes of the DLC dated 19.07.2014 clearly provided the said information. Accordingly, the petitioner was recommended against the vacant post of the year 2010-11. Earlier the petitioner was recommended in the minutes of the DLC dated 25.06.2012 although on that occasion the SLC had send the matter back to the DLC for making a recheck of the available vacancy. 4. Accordingly, when the matter was taken up by the DLC in its meeting dated 19.07.2014, the DLC provides as follows:- "The DLC meeting rechecked the availability of vacant post of Grade-IV post as directed by SLC on its meeting held on 4/5/2013 and recommended against the eligible vacant post of Grade-IV occurred in the year 2010-11." 5. The DLC had rechecked the vacancy position and reiterated that one post was available for compassionate appointment for the year 2010-11. 6. It would be appropriate to take note of that by a communication dated 07.01.2017, the Commandant, 4th APTF Bn. Howly, Barpeta informed the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Home Department regarding the financial status of one Smti. Krishna Singha and the petitioner Smti. Pranita Das. 7. It is also taken note of that Smti. Krishna Singha was an applicant for compassionate appointment for the year 2011-12 whereas the petitioner was an applicant for the year 2010-11. of Assam in the Home Department regarding the financial status of one Smti. Krishna Singha and the petitioner Smti. Pranita Das. 7. It is also taken note of that Smti. Krishna Singha was an applicant for compassionate appointment for the year 2011-12 whereas the petitioner was an applicant for the year 2010-11. Although on inter se financial comparison, Smti Krishna Singha was financially weaker than that of the petitioner, but the basic fact that would remain is that both of them were applicants for two different years and therefore, there cannot be any inter se comparison of the financial status as they are competing for two different vacant posts of two different years. 8. Be that as it may, the SLC in its meeting held on 06.06.2017 rejected the claim of the petitioner by arriving at the following conclusion:- "Lack of vacancy. Financial Status higher compared to other applicants." 9. We are of the view that it was a non application of mind by the SLC in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. 10. The DLC had clearly pointed out that one vacancy for the year 2010-11 which was done even after rechecking the vacancy position, so without providing any further reason the SLC was incompetent to merely strike it out that there was no vacancy available. 11. Regarding the conclusion as regards financial position, we have taken note of that for the year 2010-11 the recommendation by the DLC was only for one candidate and therefore there could not have been any financial comparison with any other candidate. If the SLC had ventured out to make financial comparison with the candidates of some other year as already concluded, it would be inappropriate. 12. In view of the above, the conclusion of the SLC in rejecting the petitioner by its meeting dated 06.06.2017 is set aside. The matter stands remanded back to the SLC to make further consideration as indicated above. 13. The matter be placed before the next available SLC for its consideration.