Gauhati High Court
Sona Bora vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 27 September, 2022
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010195952022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6394/2022
SONA BORA
SON OF LATE JATIN BORA,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GASARGURI,
P.O.- UDARI,
DISTRICT- MORIGAON,
ASSAM,
PIN-
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM AND
CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON
COMPASSIONATE GROUND,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
3:THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT
ASSAM
AT CHENIKUTHI
GUWAHATI
ASSAM.
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MORIGAON DISTRICT CUM CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
MORIGAON FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND.
Page No.# 2/3
5:THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
DEPARTMENTAL
MORIGAON
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
Date : 27-09-2022
Heard Mr. A Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Dhar, learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The father of the petitioner Jatin Bora who was a Chowkidar (Grade-IV) in the
establishment of the District Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Officer, Morigaon died in harness
on 11.07.1999 and on his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate
appointment. When the application was not acted upon, the petitioner instituted WP(C) No.
8423/2004 which was given its final consideration by the order dated 22.11.2004 with a
direction to the Director of Veterinary Department to take necessary steps to consider the
application of the petitioner.
3. The Director sat over the matter from 2004 and ultimately, passed the order dated
13.04.2022 stating that 5% of the vacancy had already exhausted and therefore, no
appointment can be made and further that 22 (twenty two) years had elapsed since the
death of the father of the petitioner.
4. We are in disagreement with both the reasoning of the Director. Firstly, although the
Director may have been given the responsibility by the Court in the year 2004 to pass a
reasoned order but the said responsibility cannot not be carried forward for the next 18
(eighteen) years so as to pass the order in the year 2022. It is more so as in the meantime,
the law has changed and the existence of DLC which is an expert body to consider
Page No.# 3/3
compassionate appointment had been brought in as per the judgment of this Court in Achyut
Ranjan & ors vs. State of Assam & ors reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674 and Faziron Nessa and
others vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2010(4) GLT 340 . Secondly, whether or not,
any vacancy exists, it is for the DLC to determine and not for the Director to take his own call.
Further, after judgment of this Court in Achyut Ranjan & ors vs. State of Assam & ors
reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674 and Faziron Nessa and others vs. State of Assam and others
reported in 2010(4) GLT 340, the Director has no jurisdiction to consider the application for
compassionate appointment.
5. For both the reasons, the order dated 13.04.2022 is set aside. As there is an earlier
direction of this Court to consider the application of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment, accordingly, it be placed before the next available DLC of Morigaon district. The
DLC would consider the application in a legitimate manner taking note that the delay had
been caused because the Director had sat over the matter for 18 (eighteen) years from the
year 2004 to 2022 and not that the petitioner had not approached the authorities at the
relevant point of time.
6. The reasoned order be passed by the DLC accordingly.
Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
