Nezam Uddin vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2330 Gua

                                                              Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010147212021




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

                         Case No. : WP(C)/4870/2021

         NEZAM UDDIN
         S/O LATE SHAMS UDDIN
         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARINADIK
         PO ANGLAR BAZAR,PS BADARPUR, DIST KARIMGANJ, ASSAM 788806



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY , ELEMENTARY
         EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06

         2:THE DIRECTOR
          ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
          KAHILIPARA
          GUWAHATI 19

         3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

          KARIMGANJ CUM CHAIRMAN
          DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
          DIST KARIMGANJ
          ASSAM
          788710

         4:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM MEMBER

          DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
          KARIMGANJ
          ASSAM
          788710

         5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
                                                                       Page No.# 2/4


             KARIMGANJ
             ASSAM
             7887

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. I ALAM

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                 BEFORE
            HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

                                          ORDER

Date : 27/09/2021

The petitioner being aggrieved by the decision of the DLC of Karimganj district in its meeting dated 11.06.2021 to the extent that there was an earlier decision of the High Court dated 24.02.2021 in WP(C) 1114/2021, wherein, the Court had taken note of that the mother of the petitioner who was a widow of the deceased government employee namely Shamsuddin had earlier submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 26.07.2015 and at that stage the present petitioner was a minor. Upon attaining majority, the petitioner also submitted his application on 27.06.2017. In the order dated 24.02.2021, the Court took note of an ancillary fact that the mother of the petitioner had also earlier made an application and also the core fact that the petitioner had made his application on 27.06.2017. But the submission of the petitioner that the mother had abandoned her claim for compassionate appointment, the petitioner is now making an application for compassionate appointment upon attaining majority was also taken note of.

2. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be placed before the DLC of Karimganj district. On the matter being taken up for consideration as per the requirement of the order dated 24.02.2021 in WP(C) 1114/2021, the DLC of Karimganj district in its meeting dated 11.06.2021 came to its own factual finding that the records reveal that the mother of the petitioner had not earlier submitted any application.

Page No.# 3/4

3. The DLC thereafter arrives at a conclusion that the father of the petitioner died on 26.07.2015 whereas the application was made on 27.06.2017.

4. Taking note of both the aforesaid facts, the claim for compassionate appointment stood rejected. The entire approach of the DLC appears to be an attempt of the petitioner to overreach the Court's order. The fact noted in the earlier order that the mother had submitted an application on 26.07.2015 is an ancillary fact and not the core fact based upon which the judgment was passed and it is immaterial where the ancillary fact is ultimately found to be correct or incorrect. Secondly, the Court had taken note of that the deceased had died on 26.07.2015 and the application was made on 27.06.2017 by the petitioner and inspite of taking note of all the aforesaid dates, a direction was issued the matter to be placed for considering before the DLC, Karimganj district. When the Court after taking note of the relevant dates passes an order for consideration, the order means a consideration on merit and not a rejection on the ground of delay, of fact which was already in the notice of the Court when the order was passed.

5. When the issue had been decided by the Court it does not any further leave it upon the DLC to again decide it and reject on the ground of there being a delay. The act of the DLC to reject on the ground of delay is clearly an indication that the DLC had taken upon itself to re-adjudicate the matter. Such conduct on the part of the DLC can be construed to be a contempt of Court.

6. What we have noticed that this not a isolated case and of late we are noticing that the government officer in their own enthusiasm are taking it upon themselves to re-adjudicate the judgments of the Court, point out certain aspect and take a decision contrary to the Court's judgment and pass their own orders. This is a dangerous trend and if not stopped at the root would lead to a Page No.# 4/4

deterioration of the constitutional order prevailing in the country.

7. In the circumstance, we request the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam to look into the matter and issue appropriate notification in general to all officers of the Govt. of Assam not to indulge any acts of such nature. If the orders of the Court are later on noticed to be incorrect, appropriate remedy would be to file an appeal or to move an application of review, but under no circumstance a government officer unilaterally to take upon itself to re-adjudicate of the Court's order and take different view on one pretext or the other and act accordingly.

8. Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General is present and the learned counsel is requested to take up the matter with the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam.

9. List on 05.10.2021. A copy of the order be provided to Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant