Gauhati High Court
Meenhaz Uddin Barbhuiya vs The Gauhati High Court And 2 Ors on 6 September, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010118822021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/191/2021
MEENHAZ UDDIN BARBHUIYA
S/O LATE MAHTAB UDDIN BARBHUIYA, R/O VILL-SATKORAKANDI-II,
P.O.-SATKORABANDI-II, DIST-CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788013
VERSUS
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND 2 ORS.
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
PRADESH) REPRESENTED BY THE REGEISTRAR GENERAL, GAUHATI
HIGH COURT, GUWHATI-1
2:THE REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION)
-CUM-IN-CHARGE
CENTRALISED RECRUITMENT
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
GUWAHATI-1
3:THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT
CACHAR
P.O.-SILCHAR
DIST-CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-78800
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S ROY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GHC
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 06-09-2021
The matter is taken up through video conferencing.
Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the appellant.
This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order of
the learned Single Judge dated 01.02.2021 passed in WP(C) No.1694/2019, by
which the writ petition of the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. The
writ petition was filed by the appellant/writ petitioner seeking a direction for
appointment on compassionate ground.
The facts of the case are that the father of the appellant/writ petitioner,
who was working as a Superintendent in the Family Court, Cachar at Silchar
died in harness on 21.11.2010. The mother of the appellant/writ petitioner
thereafter filed an application on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner for his
appointment on compassionate ground on 06.12.2010. Since the appointment
was not made, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition before this
Court, being WP(C) No.5455/2012, which was disposed of by the learned Single
Judge on 02.06.2014 by passing the following order:
"The learned counsel appearing for the parties, however, in course of
argument have submitted that in the matter of appointment on compassionate
ground in any post in subordinate judiciary, a judgment has been passed by this
Court on 17th February, 2014 in WP(C) No.1978/2013 (Smti. Babita Nath Vs. State
of Assam & Ors.) and as such, the petitioner's case has to be considered in terms of
the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment and order.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing consideration
Page No.# 3/4
of the case of the petitioner in terms of the directions contained in the aforesaid
judgment and order. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of
3(three) months from today.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs."
Since appointment of the petitioner was not considered, the petitioner
was constrained to file a contempt petition being Contempt Case (C)
No.627/2015. The contempt petition was, however, dismissed as the Court was
of the view that there was no wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court.
Meanwhile, the Gauhati High Court had issued a Notification dated
03.01.2017, whereby a scheme was formulated for appointment on
compassionate grounds. One of the conditions in the said Notification was that
appointment shall be made to a family member of a person subject to the
condition that such a person had at least three years of service remaining. In
the present case, since the period of service remaining in respect of the
deceased employee was less than three years, the petitioner was not given
appointment. The appellant/writ petitioner again filed a writ petition before this
Court being WP(C) No.1694/2019, which was again dismissed by the learned
Single Judge on the ground that at the time when the appellant/writ petitioner
was first considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, it was under a
scheme of the State Government where only 5% of the existing vacancies were
to be considered for compassionate appointment. The appellant/writ petitioner
did not fit in these 5% vacancies. As far as appointment of the appellant/writ
petitioner under the second scheme is concerned, the same cannot be
considered as his father did not have three years of remaining service.
The appellant/writ petitioner claims hardships. He would also argue that
the present scheme of 2017 cannot be made applicable in his case.
Page No.# 4/4
All the same, whether under the old scheme or the new scheme, the
fact of the matter is that technically the petitioner's case could not have been
considered. Moreover, there is another important factor for this Court to
consider, which is that appointment on compassionate grounds are an exception
to the rule where appointments are to be made on the basis of merit.
Compassionate appointments are made so that the immediate hardships faced
by the family of the deceased are mitigated as they have lost the only bread
winner of the family. In the present case, the tragedy for the family had
occurred in November, 2010. By now, more than ten years have passed. One
cannot say that the conditions existing in the year 2010 are the same and they
are continuing in the year 2021. Therefore, there is no case of immediate
hardship etc. also for the present petitioner.
Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to have a view which is
different from the one arrived at by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, we
find no scope for interference in the matter.
The appeal is hereby dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
