Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 24 February, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010012112021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/485/2021
DERAJ TALUKDAR AND ANR.
S/O LATE KHAIBAR TALUKDAR, VILL. AND P.O. GAMARIMURI, P.S.
BELSOR, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN 781306
2: MITHU DEBI
W/O LATE SADHAN PANDIT
VILL. RANGAFALI
P.O. NAHERBARI
P.S. GHOGRAPAR
DIS. NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN 78134
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI 6
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL (B)
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 6
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 6
4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
FINANCE DEPTT.
ASSAM DISPUR
GUWAHATI 6
5:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI 19
6:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
NALBARI AT NALBAR
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
24.02.2021
Heard Mr. UK Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B Gogoi, learned counsel
for the Finance Department of the Government of Assam, Ms. N Phukan, learned counsel for the
Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam and Mr. SR Barua, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1, 2 and 6.
Issue notice, returnable by two weeks.
Extra copies of the writ petition be served on the learned counsel for the respondents as
indicated hereinabove within 3(three) days.
The petitioners claim to be the family members of persons who were killed by
extremists/terrorists violence prior to 22.06.2004 and in the circumstance have made applications
under the provisions of Assam Public Services (Appointment of family members of persons killed by
extremists/terrorists) Rules, 1992 (for short, the Rules of 1992). In the circumstance, this writ petition
is instituted that inspite of such applications being made and inspite of being entitled for appointment
under the aforesaid Rules, the respondents have not acted in the required manner.
It is taken note that the said Rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and
Page No.# 3/3
by another notification dated 22.06.2004, the earlier Rules of 1992 have been repealed, but there is
one judgment of this Court passed in WP(C)No.3355/2007 wherein it is provided that if an application
was made under the Rules of 1992, prior to it being repealed by the notification dated 22.06.2004,
such claim would survive.
In the circumstance, the Office Memorandum dated 29.07.2013 was issued by the Personnel (B)
Department of the Government of Assam which provides that the Department had compiled a list of
57 such applicants, who had applied prior to 22.06.2004, but appointments have not been made.
Accordingly, the Office Memorandum provides for an appointment to 57 such applicants who have
otherwise been found genuine and eligible as per the first available vacant post in their respective
establishments. What is the meaning of the expression 'in their respective establishment' is unclear,
inasmuch as, a statement has been made that the application for appointment under the Rules of
1992 is not made against any specific department, but before an authority merely claiming for an
appointment under the Rules. Further, the petitioners are also not included in the list of 57 such
applicants, but claim that they were left out from such consideration earlier.
In the circumstance, the respondents in the Finance Department, Personnel (B) Department as
well as the Elementary Education Department shall file their respective affidavits making their stand
clear as to in what manner the Government intends to deal with such applicants who had made their
applications for jobs prior to 22.06.2004.
List after two weeks.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
