Smt. Rupanjali Barman vs The Gauhati High Court And 2 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 838 Gua

                                                                       Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010031102022




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

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/1333/2022

            SMT. RUPANJALI BARMAN
            W/O- LATE ATUL CHANDRA BARMAN, R/O- VILL.- JOWARDI, P.O.
            KAITHALKUCHI, P.S. BELSOR, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN- 781370.



            VERSUS

            THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND 2 ORS.
            (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
            PRADESH), REP. BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF GAUHATI HIGH
            COURT, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781001.

            2:THE REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION) CUM IN-CHARGE

             CENTRALIZED RECRUITMENT
             GAUHATI HIGH COURT
             GUWAHATI
             PIN- 781001.

            3:THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
             KAMRUP(M)
             GUWAHATI
            ASSAM
             PIN- 781001

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S BARMAN

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GHC
                                                                  Page No.# 2/3

                                BEFORE
              HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                    ORDER

09.03.2022

Heard Mr. S. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner's husband died-in-harness on 21.02.2016. The petitioner thereafter applied for compassionate appointment on 23.03.2017. The petitioner's application was considered by the respondent authorities on 07.02.2020 and the same was rejected on account of want of vacancy.

2. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment in terms of the judgment of this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das and Others vs. State of Assam and Others reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674. He submits that though there was no vacancy available, to consider the case of the petitioner at the time the respondent authorities considered the petitioner's case, the petitioner's case should be considered again as and when a vacancy arises.

3. Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 submits that the writ petition should be dismissed, as the petitioner's case has been considered and rejected due to a valid reason, which has not been put to challenge.

4. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties, it is clear that the case of the petitioner had been considered by the respondent authorities and the reasons for her rejection is due to want of vacancy. This fact is Page No.# 3/3

not disputed by either of the parties. In the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra), this Court has held that an application would be valid for a period of 2 (two) years and thereafter would have spent it's force. In the present case, the petitioner submitted her application on 23.03.2017 and the consideration of the application was done nearly 3 years thereafter. Even on the date when the petitioner's application was considered by the authorities, there was no vacancy available against which the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment could have been recommended. The above facts go to show that there was no infirmity with the decision of the respondent authorities in rejecting the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment. Further, in terms of the decision in Achyut Ranjan Das (supra), the petitioner's application cannot be considered again in the future.

5. In view of the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant