Gauhati High Court
Binod Barman vs The State Of Assam And 8 Ors on 20 April, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010045382022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2662/2022
BINOD BARMAN
S/O- LT. SANKAR BARMAN, R/O- VILL. BASUGAON WARD NO. 3, ASEB
ROAD, P.O.- BASUGAON, P.S. AND DIST.- KOKRAJHAR, (BTAD), ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM CUM
CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE.
2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON
COMPASSIONATE GROUND
REP. BY MEMBER SECY. CUM COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
IRRIGATION DEPTT.
3:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
IRRIGATION DEPTT.
4:THE DIST. LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE
GROUND
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECY.
BTC.
5:THE DY. SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE (EC-I) DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
6:THE PRINCIPAL SECY.
BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM.
Page No.# 2/4
7:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
KOKRAJHAR
DIST- KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM.
8:THE ADDL. DY. COMMISSIONER (PERSONAL)
KOKRAJHAR
DIST. KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM.
9:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CHAMPAMATI CANAL DIVISION (IRRIGATION)
DHALIGAON (NOW RENAMED AS BIJNI DIVISION (IRRIGATION) BIJNI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Date : 20-04-2022
Heard Mr. M K Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S Borua,
learned counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2, 7 and 8 being the Chief Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar and Additional Deputy
Commissioner, Kokrajhar respectively, Mr. N Upadhaya, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 3 being the authorities under the Irrigation Department, Mr. R K
Mushahari, learned counsel for the respondents no. 4, 6 and 9 being the authorities
under the BTC and Mr. A Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 being the
authorities under the Finance Department, Government of Assam.
2. The father of the petitioner Sankar Barman who was serving as a driver, Grade-
III in the Irrigation Department, Kokrajhar died in harness on 14.05.2015 and on his
death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on
08.06.2015. The said application was considered by the DLC of BTC in its meeting of
Page No.# 3/4
08.09.2017. The DLC arrived at its conclusion that two posts in the cadre of Junior
Assistant and Section Assistant were available for compassionate appointment and
accordingly, the petitioner was recommended for one of the vacant post of Section
Assistant, Grade-III. When the recommendation was placed before the SLC in its
meeting of 15.09.2021, it stood rejected on the ground that the petitioner having the
qualification of HSSLC would not meet the required qualification for the post of Section
Assistant. Being aggrieved, this writ petition is instituted.
3. Mr. M K Das, learned counsel for the petitioner raises a contention that when the
application for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner on 08.06.2015,
the required qualification was matriculation and therefore, the SLC was incorrect in
rejecting the recommendation on the ground that the petitioner did not have the
required qualification.
4. We are unable to accept the said contention of Mr. M K Das, learned counsel for
the petitioner inasmuch as per the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in
paragraph 25 of N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnatka and ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC
617 in respect of compassionate appointment, the norms prevailing on the date of
consideration would be relevant and not the norms as it stood on the date of
application unlike that of a regular appointment.
5. From the said point of view, we are unable to notice any infirmity in the decision
of the SLC rejecting the application of the petitioner but however, the law of
compassionate appointment requires that an application is made against any available
vacant post to which the applicant may be duly qualified for and it should not be
considered in respect of a specific post, irrespective of whether the applicant
mentioned such post or not.
6. Further, paragraph 15 of the OM dated 01.06.2015 requires that the
consideration be made against any vacant post in any department for which the
applicant may be qualified for.
7. Considering the aforesaid aspect, we remand the matter back to the DLC of BTC
for a fresh consideration on the claim of the petitioner against any available vacant
Page No.# 4/4
post in any department for which the petitioner may be duly qualified for. The
application of the petitioner be placed before the next available DLC of BTC.
8. Writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
