Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And 9 Ors on 7 April, 2021
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010164572019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5055/2019
SMRITI DAS AND 7 ORS.
D/O. LT. DHARANI DHAR DAS, VILL. BALIJAN, P.O. BAKALIA, DIST. KARBI
ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN-782482.
2: BIBIKA BARMAN
W/O. LT. JOY CHANDRA BARMAN
P.O. HOJAI
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN-782435.
3: SAMSUDDIN AHMED
S/O. LT. ALAUDDIN AHMED
R/O. VILL. PIALIKHATA
P.O. BAIHATA CHARIALI
PIN-781381
DIST. KAMRUP (R)
ASSAM.
4: HIMLATA DEVI
D/O. LT. NAGENDRA NATH
C/O. MRIDUL KUMAR SAIKIA
VILL. DA PORBOTIA SAKARCHUBRI
P.O. DA PORBOTIA
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784001.
5: DWIPJYOTI BAISHYA
S/O. LT. UPENDRA NATH BAISHYA
VILL. KHARSITHA
P.O. KHARSITHA
DIST. NALBARI
Page No.# 2/8
ASSAM
PIN-781370.
6: BHARAT CHANDRA KALITA
S/O. LT. SANKAR KALITA
VILL. JANIGOG
P.O. JANIGOG
DIST. NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781334.
7: DEVA KANTA SONOWAL
S/O. LT. MOHAN CH. SONOWAL
VILL. HOLLOWDUNGA
P.O. HOLLOWDUNGA
DIST. DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN-787026.
8: ARATI DEURI
W/O. LT. BINANDA DEURI
VILL. LIKHAK CHAPORI DEORI GAON
P.O. LIKHAK CHAPORI
DIST. NORTH LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN-787054
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMM AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOREST
DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE CHIEF SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR
GHY.-06
ASSAM.
3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
ARANYA BHAWAN
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI-29
ASSAM.
4:DIVISIONAL FOEST OFFICER
WEST DIVISION
DIPHU DIST. KARBIANGLONG
Page No.# 3/8
ASSAM
PIN-782460.
5:DISISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
SOUTH DIVISION
HOJAI
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782435.
6:DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
NORTH KAMRUP DIVISION
RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781345.
7:DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
WESTERN ASSAM WILDLIFE DIVISION DOLABARI
TEZPUR
DIST. TEZPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784027.
8:DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
SOCIAL FARESTRY DIVISION DIST. NALBARI
ASSAM PIN-781335.
9:DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
DHEMAJI DIVISION DIST. DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN-787057.
10:DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION NORTH LAKHIMPUR
DIST. LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN-787001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J KALITA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM (R-2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
Page No.# 4/8
ORDER
Date : 07-04-2021
Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned
standing counsel for the Forest Department, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein and Ms.
S. Chutia, learned standing counsel for the respondent no. 4.
2) By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
eight petitioners herein have prayed for directing the respondent authorities to consider the
case of the petitioner and to appoint them on compassionate ground with all consequential
benefits since the date of their recommendation made by the State Level Committee (SLC for
short) in its meeting held on 13.08.2014, and to set aside and quash the recommendation
made by the SLC meeting held on 01.04.2015.
3) By referring to the purported recommendation dated 13.08.2014, it is
submitted that the relevant particulars of the petitioners are as follows:
Sl. Year of Total no. Vacancy Name of Caste Date of Date of Education Date of Views/ Remarks
No vacancy of reserved for the applicatio birth of qualificatio death of comments (if any)
vacancy compassionat applicant n applicant n the
e appointment Govt.
servant
89 Smt. SC 09.11.03 02.07.83 B.A. 08.10.03 Recommende
Smiriti d for
Das appointment
against the
vacancy of
Grade-III
posts for the
year 2003
91 2004 Grade- Grade-III- 5, Smti General 03.01.04 01.01.78 H.S.L.C 11.07.03 Recommende
III- 90, Grade-IV - 1 Bibika d for
Grade-IV- Barman appointment
29 against the
vacancy of
Grade-IV
posts for the
year 2006
202 Md. General 03.04.08 05.05.88 H.S. 02.12.07 Recommende
Samsuddi d for
appointment
Page No.# 5/8
n Ahmed against the
vacancy of
Grade-III
posts for the
year 2009
158 Miss. General 08.01.07 29.10.83 H.S. 27.05.06 Recommende
Himlata d for
Devi appointment
against the
vacancy of
Grade-III
posts for the
year 2007
97 Sri General 07.04.04 01.03.82 H.S. 29.01.04 Recommende
Dipjyoti d for
Baishya appointment
against the
vacancy of
Grade-III
posts for the
year 2003
234 Sri Bharat General 30.01.09 01.05.76 H.S. 12.10.08 Recommende
Ch. Kalita d for
appointment
against the
vacancy of
Grade-III
posts for the
year 2010
170 Sri Deba ST(P) 15.05.07 03.03.76 BA 10.03.07 Recommende
Kt. d for
Sonowal appointment
against the
vacancy of
Grade-III
posts for the
year 2008
68 Smti Arati ST(P) 04.03.03 19.04.73 H.S.L.C. 23.01.02 Recommende
Deuri d for
Borgohain appointment
against the
vacancy of
Grade-IV
posts for the
year 2005
4) It is projected that as the petitioners did not receive the desired information,
they had moved this Court by filing WP(C) 3435/2015 and during the pendency of the said
writ petition, the select list was published by advertisement dated 17.07.2015. It is projected
that as the information was not received, contempt petition, being Cont. Case No. 580/2018
was also filed and only after the petitioners did not receive any information, the present writ
Page No.# 6/8
petition was filed on 17.07.2019.
5) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there are still
several Grade-III and Grade-IV posts which are available for appointment on compassionate
ground and therefore, it is submitted that the respondent authorities may reconsider the case
of the petitioners and accordingly, pass appropriate orders. It is also submitted that the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 03.08.2020 passed in WA 74/2020 was
distinguishable facts and therefore, the said ratio of the judgment could not apply in the
present case in hand.
6) It may be stated that affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 3
today is not on record. However, as the learned counsel for the petitioners has insisted on the
disposal of the writ petition a copy of the said affidavit as produced by the learned standing
counsel for the respondent is accepted and kept on record. It is submitted by the learned
standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 that the matter relating to the appointment
on compassionate ground by the Environment and Forest Department is directly taken up by
the SLC and the recommendation was not required to be routed through the District Level
Committee for appointment on compassionate ground. Referring to the recommendation,
stated to be by the SLC (part of Annexure-E), it is submitted that the said recommendation
was made by the Conservator of Forests (H.Q.), who is not empowered by any rules or
notification in force to make any recommendation. In the affidavit-in-opposition, it is
specifically denied that the SLC had made any recommendation in its meeting held on
13.08.2014. It is submitted that the SLC meeting was held on 01.04.2015, which is apparent
from advertisement at Annexure-C and the SLC had examined the vacancies from 1996 to
2010 and recommended persons for appointments against the Grade-III and Grade-IV posts.
It is submitted that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to give immediate aid to
the family members of the deceased and in the present case in hand, the respective
predecessor-in-interest had died long time back during the period between the year 2002 to
2008. In support of his submissions, the learned standing counsel for the respondents has
Page No.# 7/8
placed reliance on the judgment and order dated 03.08.2020 passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in WA 74/2020.
7) It is not in dispute that the respective predecessor-in-interest of the
petitioners had died between the year 2002-2008. As per the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners had applied for being appointed on
compassionate ground within the reasonable time from the death of their respective
predecessor-in-interest. It cannot be ignored that the object of giving employment on
compassionate ground has already lapsed by afflux of time as of now. The appointment on
compassionate ground is an exception to the rule of appointment in public service by open
invitation and on merit. Neither from the statement made in the writ petition nor from the
affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent, the year wise vacancy position of the years in
which the respective predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had expired can be
ascertained. From the part of the Annexure-E to the writ petition, it appears that the total
vacancy position of Grade-III posts was 1571 and the vacancy available for appointment on
compassionate ground at 5% of total vacancy was 79 and similarly the total vacant posts of
the Grade-IV was 503 and the vacancy available for appointment on compassionate ground
at 5% of total vacancy was 25. Therefore, out of vacancy earmarked for appointment on
compassionate ground, being 104, it appears from the Annexure-C of the writ petition that
104 appointments had already been made. Therefore, there is no record to show that further
vacancy exists for appointment on the compassionate ground for the years between 2002-
2008.
8) Hence, if the appointments are made vide select list disclosed in the
advertisement dated 17.07.2015 (Annexure-C) remains un-assailed, there is no way that the
petitioners would become entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate
ground without dislodging the selected persons whose name appear in the vide said
advertisement dated 17.07.2015. None of the selected candidates are found to be impleaded
in the present writ petition. Therefore, no orders adverse to the interest of those persons can
Page No.# 8/8
be passed by this Court without hearing them. Moreover, it may be mentioned that the
petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the minutes of the SLC meeting is vitiated
by any illegality or arbitrariness. It has also not been demonstrated that any undeserving
persons had been appointed. Therefore, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
9) After the order was passed, the learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the competent Authority had further taken up the cases for compassionate
appointment for the year 2002 onwards and have appointed above 200 persons. However,
the said submission is not a part of the pleading of this writ petition. Therefore, it is needless
to state that if the petitioners have any surviving cause of action that would have occasioned
by fresh appointments, it would be open to the petitioners to take such steps as they may be
so advised.
10) The Registry shall tag the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos.
1 to 3 on record.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
