Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010271672019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/8197/2019
HASIB HUSSAIN
S/O LT. NAZIR HUSSAIN, VII. WARD NO. 2, GAURIPUR, P.O. AND P.S.
GAURIPUR, DIST-DHUBRI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REP. BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION
DEPTT. DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06
2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE
CONSTITUTED FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND IN
RESPECT OF IRRIGATION DEPTT. REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PERSONNEL (B) DEPTT. DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
3:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
DHUBRI
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DHUBRI
ASSAM
4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-3
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DHUBRI DIVISION (IRRIGATION)
GAURIPUR
Page No.# 2/5
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 05.12.2022 Heard Mr. R. A. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. T. C. Chutia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to take a decision on the proposal for compassionate appointment of the petitioner in Grade -III (SA) Post as recommended by DLC meeting held on 13.11.2017 within a stipulated time and also in terms with the directions contained in the judgment of Achyut Ranjan Dass Vs. State of Assam reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner passed H.S. Examination with First Division in the year 1995 and a Certificate was issued on 30.05.2015 in favour of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner namely Late Nazir Hussain was serving as a Chowkidar under Dhubri Division (Irrigation), Gauripur. He died in harness on 26.12.2016 and a Death Certificate in that regard was issued on 19.01.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner applied before the respondent authorities for appointment on compassionate grounds and Page No.# 3/5 completed all the formalities. The respondent authorities forwarded the petitioner's case to the District Level Committee in time and the District Level Committee selected his case vide the minutes of the meeting held on 13.11.2017.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the District Level Committee had forwarded the case of the petitioner to the respondent No.2 i.e. the State Level Committee for compassionate appointments but the respondent No.2 have not given any recommendation and resultantly the petitioner has not been appointed. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Annexure-1 to the writ petition is the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner have passed his Higher Secondary Final Examination, 2015 in Arts Stream and was placed in the First Division. Annexure-3 is very relevant for the purpose of the instant dispute which is the minutes of the meeting of the District Level Committee for appointment on compassionate ground held on 13.11.2017. In Clause-XVI, the recommendations in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Dhubri Division (Irrigation), Gauripur have been mentioned.
6. A perusal of the said recommendations reveals that the Department had submitted proposal of 2 (two) nos. of application for the post of Grade-III (SA) praying for appointment on compassionate grounds. Out of the two applications, one is of the petitioner. It further reveals from the said minutes that the Committee though examined and found that the application of the petitioner along with another application were valid in all respects, but the Page No.# 4/5 District Level Committee could not recommend above mentioned 2 (two) nos. of proposals as 5% of the total cadre strength of both Grade-III posts have already been recommended by the earlier DLC. Under such circumstances from a bare perusal of the Annexure-3, it is apparent that the petitioner's case has not been recommended by the District Level Committee. In that view of the entire edifice of the case of the petitioner falls, taking into account that the petitioner has not yet been recommended by the District Level Committee.
7. On the other hand, Mr. T. C. Chutia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that even otherwise the petitioner could not also be recommended for the post of Grade-III (SA) inasmuch as for the said post the necessary qualification is to be Higher Secondary pass in Science Stream and a perusal of Annexure-1 categorically shows that the petitioner had passed his Higher Secondary Examination in Arts Stream. Referring to the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 and more particularly to Clause-5 therein, he submits that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and it will be subject to fulfillment of all the conditions, including the availability of vacancy, laid down for such appointment under the scheme. He therefore submitted that in the instant case, there are no vacancies and secondly the question of the petitioner fulfilling the conditions also does not arise for the post of Section Assistant taking into consideration that the petitioner is not qualified for the said post. He also referred to the various principles as set out in Clause- 11 of the said Office Memorandum and more pertinently to Principle-10 which stipulates that if the application of the eligible candidates remain pending and cannot be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of 2 (two) years from the date of making such application, the said application will not require any further consideration and must be understood to have spent its force.
Page No.# 5/5
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, it transpires that the petitioner's case has not been recommended even by the District Level Committee although his application was found to be in order taking into account that there was no vacancy. Under such circumstances, the question of State Level Committee examining the case of the petitioner also does not arise.
9. It further appears that the petitioner has filed his application for being appointed on compassionate ground in the year 2017 and already 5 years have already passed by. Taking into consideration as the Principle-10 as mentioned in Clause No.11 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, this Court is not in a position to give a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner inasmuch as 2 years mandated therein have already passed and there is no available vacancy.
10. Under such circumstances, this Court having not found any merits, dismisses the instant writ petition.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant