Gauhati High Court
Md. Parvez Mushtaque Ahmed vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 24 September, 2021
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010020782021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/750/2021
MD. PARVEZ MUSHTAQUE AHMED
S/O. LT. AFTABUDDIN AHMED, VILL. SATGAON NAWAPARA, P.O.
PANJABARI, P.S. SATGAON, GUWAHATI-781037, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPTT.,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
3:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
GUWAHATI-781022.
4:DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI.
5:DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P P MEDHI
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
JUDGMENT
Date : 24-09-2021
Heard Mr. P.P. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
P.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5 being the
authorities under the Elementary Education Department and Mr. Girin Pegu,
learned counsel for the respondents No.3.
2. The limited grievance raised in this petition is that the father of the
petitioner Late Aftauddin Ahmed was a teacher in the Harijan Buniyadi Vidyalaya
L.P. School in Guwahati and died in harness on 05.08.2015. On his death, the
petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on
30.09.2015. But inspite of making all efforts in the office of the respondents, the
petitioner had not been informed about the outcome of the said application.
3. In the circumstance, when the matter was taken up on 05.08.2021, we also
required the respondents to provide the information if any on the outcome.
Accordingly, today Mr. Girin Pegu, learned counsel produces a copy of the
minutes of the DLC, Kamrup(M) dated 30.09.2019 which is extracted as under:-
"The proposals in respect of the following candidates have spent their force
as they have been lying pending due to the death of vacancy for more than 2
years as per Govt. O.M. no. ABP.50/2006/Pt./182, dated 01.06.2015, which
states that applications which remain pending due to the want of vacancies for
period of 2 years from the date of making such application, all such application
will require no further consideration and must be understood to have spent their
Page No.# 3/5
force. Hence, the following proposals are regretted.
1. Smti. Beauty Ganju
2. Sri Mriganka Hazarika
3. Smti. Manoranjan Das
4. Sri Acharjya Boro
5. Sri Manji Das
6. Sri Guddu Kumar
7. Smti. Bandana Kalita Saikia
8. Sri Ujjal Rajbongshi
9. Md. Parvez Mushtaq Ahmed
10. Sri J.B.K. Swargiary
11. Syeda Renu Ahmed
12. Sri Subhajit Konwar"
4. A reading of the reasons for rejecting the application of the petitioner
makes it discernible that as already noted, the petitioner made an application
for compassionate appointment on 30.09.2015 whereas, it was considered in
the meeting of the DLC of Kamrup(M) on 30.09.2019 and in the meantime, two
years had elapsed.
5. In Faziron Nessa and Others -vs- State of Assam and others reported in
2010(4) GLR 340 it has been provided by this Court that if any application for
compassionate appointment could not be recommended for want of vacancy
and in the meantime two years had elapsed, such application are not required
to be considered any further. But the requirement of the aforesaid provision in
Page No.# 4/5
Faziron Nessa (Supra) is that the said application would have to be placed
before the concerned DLC before the expiry of the period of two years and the
DLC would have to arrive at its conclusion that the same cannot be
recommended inasmuch as, no vacancy was available at that point of time when
it was considered. It cannot be understood to be a provision in Faziron Nessa
(supra) that the authorities will keep an application for compassionate
appointment pending for more than two years without considering it and at the
end of two years takes a stand that it has spent its force. Apparently, the reason
given in the DLC meeting of Kamrup dated 30.09.2019 appears to be that it was
rejected on the ground of having spent more than two years without it being
earlier considered.
6. According we interfere with the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment in the minutes of the DLC meeting of Kamrup(M)
30.09.2019 and remand the matter back for a fresh consideration against any
available vacant post of the year 2015 when the application for compassionate
appointment was submitted. However we provide that in the event the
application of the petitioner was given an earlier consideration by the DLC of
Kamrup(M) prior to its consideration on 30.09.2019, and it was rejected for
want of vacancy, the minutes of the said resolution of the DLC be provided to
the petitioner.
Page No.# 5/5
7. The petition is partly allowed. A copy of the DLC resolution dated
30.09.2019 is kept on record.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
