Latika Goala vs The State Level Committee (Slc) ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2935 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010213562019




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/7712/2019

            LATIKA GOALA
            W/O- LATE DURGA PRASAD GOALA, VILL- SERISPUR T E, P.O SERISPUR,
            P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) AND 3 ORS
            REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DISPUR,
            GUWAHATI- 06

            2:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
             HAILAKANDI
             REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
             HAILAKANDI
             P.O
             P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
            ASSAM

            3:THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER
            ASSAM
             GUWAHATI- 16

            4:THE LABOUR OFFICER
             HAILAKANDI
             P.O
             P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A M BARBHUIYA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/3




                                 BEFORE
               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                          ORDER

Date : 17.11.2021

Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel appears for the petitioner, while Ms. M.D. Borah appears for all the respondents.

The petitioner's grievance is with regard to the rejection of her application for compassionate appointment, though the DLC had recommended the petitioner for compassionate appointment vide its meeting minutes dated 05.03.2010, in respect of a single vacancy that occurred during the year, 2000.

The petitioner's case is that in terms of Clause 4 of the OM dated 09.09.1983, the reservation of 5% of the vacancies for appointment by way of compassionate appointment would not apply in case of a single vacancy.

The above being said, the judgments of this Court as laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674 and in the case of Faziron Nessa & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340 have held that if applications for compassionate appointment remain pending and cannot be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of 2 (two) years from the date of making such applications, all such applications will require no further consideration and must be understood to have spent their force.

Be that as it may, the question remains as to whether there are any vacancies as on date and as to the number of applications for compassionate appointment that would have to be considered against such vacancies. In this regard, the learned counsel for the State respondents shall obtain instructions.

List the matter after 3 (three) weeks.

Page No.# 3/3

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant