Anushri Roy vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2191 Gua

                                                                   Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010118332021




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/3861/2021

         ANUSHRI ROY
         D/O- LT. ANANTA KR. ROY, VILL- KAMARPARA, P.O. SALKOCHA AND P.S.
         CHAPAR, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783348



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
         REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION
         (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-06

         2:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
          KOKRAJHAR
          BTC
          PIN- 783370

         3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
          (DEEO)
          BTC
          KOKRAJHAR
          DISTRICT
          783370

         4:THAT BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER (BEEO)
          KOKRAJHAR BLOCK
          DIST.- KOKRAJHAR
          PIN- 783370

         5:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
          BTC
          KOKRAJHAR
          DISTRICT
          PIN- 783370
                                                                       Page No.# 2/5


            6:DY. INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL
             BTC
            KOKRAJHAR
             PIN- 78337

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR D C NATH

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU




                           BEFORE
      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

                                        ORDER

13.09.2021

Heard Mr. DC Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. PN Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 being the authorities under the Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam and Mr. B Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents No.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 being the authorities under the Education Department of the BTC.

2. The father of the petitioner Ananta Kumar Roy, who was working as the Headmaster of 592 No. Bandarmuri LP School under Kokrajhar Education Block in the BTC died in harness on 05.03.2016 leaving behind his wife and two daughters. The present petitioner being one of the daughters had submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 09.02.2017. When the said application was placed before the DLC of Kokrajhar district, it stood rejected as per the minutes dated 17.07.2018 on the ground that the application for compassionate appointment was made beyond the period of one year from the Page No.# 3/5

date of death of the concerned person. The rejection of the application of the petitioner by the DLC of Kokrajhar district by the minutes of the DLC dated 17.07.2018 has been assailed in this writ petition.

3. As the only reason for rejecting the application of the petitioner was that it was made beyond the period of one year from the date of death of the person concerned, the petitioner relies upon the pronouncement of this Court in Nayanmoni Das Vs. State of Assam and Ors . reported in 2018(5)GLT 459 wherein it was held that the period of one year prescribed in the concerned office memorandum as well as referred in the judgment of this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in (2006)4 GLT 674 as well as in Faziron Nessa Vs. State of Assam & Ors . reported in (2010)4 GLT 340 would have to be construed to be not mandatory. But at the same time, it was also provided in the said judgment that the applicant would also have to explain the circumstances because of which the delay has been caused and if the explanation is acceptable in such event, the application would be considered by the concerned DLC.

4. In the instant case, the petitioner refers to the representation dated 07.02.2017 made by the petitioner to the BEEO Kokrajhar stating that after the death of her father, her mother was suffering from some serious illness which required long drawn treatment over a long period of time. As the petitioner was required to attend to the serious illness of her mother she could not submit the required application within a period of one year of the death of her father. As the petitioner had made an application, we are of the view that by considering the pronouncement in Nayanmoni Das (supra), it is incumbent upon the DLC of Page No.# 4/5

Kokrajhar district to atleast take into consideration the explanation put forth by the petitioner. If the explanation is acceptable, it is for the DLC to pass appropriate order and consider the application of the petitioner on its own merit and on the other hand, if the explanation is unacceptable, the DLC is duty bound to provide its reason as to why they are not accepting the reasons.

5. Ordinarily, if the mother of the petitioner was seriously ill requiring long drawn treatment, after the death of her father, that reason cannot be said to be wholly unacceptable for explaining the delay for considering the application of the petitioner. Accordingly, by interfering with the rejection of the DLC of Kokrajhar district dated 17.07.2018, the matter stands remanded back to the DLC of Kokrajhar district to consider the claim of the petitioner by taking into consideration, the reasons given in the representation dated 07.02.2017 that after the death of her father, the mother of the petitioner was seriously ill requiring long drawn treatment. After considering the same, the DLC shall pass its reasoned order. In the event, the claim of the petitioner is rejected, the order be communicated to the petitioner with reasons and if it is accepted, the petitioner be considered in any available post for the year 2020 for the purpose of compassionate appointment.

6. The application of the petitioner be accordingly placed before the next available DLC of Kokrajhar district.

7. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Page No.# 5/5

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant