Rajib Roy vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3206 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010148442023




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

                           Case No. : WA/319/2023

         RAJIB ROY
         S/O LATE MOTILAL ROY, VILL.- GOALAGHAT, P.S.- SRIGOURI, P.S.-
         BADARPUR, DIST.-KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN-788806.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, ELEMENTARY
         EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6.

         2:THE DIRECTOR
          ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
          KAHILIPARA
          GUWAHATI- 19.

         3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          KARIMGANJ
          CUM CHAIRMAN
          DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
          DIST-KARIMGANJ
          PIN- 788710.

         4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
          KARIMGANJ
          DIST-KARIMGANJ
         ASSAM
          PIN- 788710.

         5:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
          KARIMGANJ
          P.O. AND DIST-KARIMGANJ
         ASSAM
                                                                      Page No.# 2/9

             PIN- 788710.

            6:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
             BADARPUR
             P.O.-BADARPUR
             DIST-KARIMGANJ
            ASSAM
             PIN- 788710

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. I ALAM

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU




                                  BEFORE
                      HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
               HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

                                       JUDGMENT

Date : 21-08-202 (S.P. Khaund, J)

1. Heard Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. R.B.

Bora, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No. 3 and Mr. S. Chutia, learned

Standing Counsel, Elementary Education.

2. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 05.06.2023 passed by

the learned Single Judge in connection with WP(C) No. 2126/2023. The

appellant is Rajib Roy and the respondents are the State of Assam; the Director,

Elementary Education; the Deputy Commissioner; the District Elementary

Officer; the Deputy Inspector of Schools and the Block Elementary Officer and

are arrayed as Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively.

Page No.# 3/9

3. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant is the son of Late Motilal

Roy who was working as an Assistant Teacher of Umarpur M.E. School, under

Block Elementary Education Officer, Badarpur Block of Karimganj district. The

appellant's father died in harness on 25.11.1992. The appellant was only 3 years

old when his father passed away and so he was unable to approach the

respondent authority for compassionate appointment. However, his mother Smt.

Asha Rani Roy submitted her application before the District Elementary

Education Officer, Karimganj on 18.10.1999 for appointment on compassionate

ground as a widow of the deceased employee. On 31.07.1999 another

application was submitted through proper channel and on proper format as per

government guidelines prevailing at that time, but the application submitted by

the appellant's mother was never considered. It is submitted that as the

appellant's father was the sole bread winner of the family, the appellant had to

endure difficulties after his father's demise. Meanwhile, the appellant cleared his

Higher Secondary Examination in the year 2010 but could not pursue further

studies due to financial hardship. The appellant completed his D.El.Ed in the

year 2019 from the National School of Open Schooling and is at present eligible

for the post of Teacher in ME School. The appellant also belongs to the

Scheduled Caste category.

4. On attaining majority, the appellant submitted an application before the Page No.# 4/9

respondent No. 6 for appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2011

through respondent No. 7 (BEEO), Badarpur which was duly acknowledged on

20.08.2011 and forwarded to the respondent No. 6 vide Memo No. 159 dated

20.06.2011. The appellant's application was placed before the District Level

Committee on 28.06.2013 but the District Level Committee rejected the

application on the ground of late submission. Thereafter on 21.11.2022 the

appellant submitted another application

before the Deputy Commissioner (DC in short), Karimganj. The DC is also the

Chairman of the District Level Committee (DLC in short). The appellant also

appended the decision of this Court in WP(C) No. 2991/2022 along with his

application. The appellant was expecting that his case would have been

considered by the DLC but to his dismay, his application was rejected in the

meeting held on 06.02.2023, on the same ground of late submission of

application. The appellant was not even informed about the decision of the DLC

and he again approached the authority by filing a petition for compassionate

appointment. The representations before the respondent authority were made

by the appellant on compassionate ground as the appellant has no source of

income to maintain his family.

5. The appellant had prayed before the learned Single Judge to set aside and Page No.# 5/9

quash the decision of the DLC dated 06.02.2023. The appellant had also prayed

for a direction to the respondent authority for consideration of his case in the

next DLC meeting. It has been admitted by the appellant that his mother

submitted her application for compassionate appointment on 18.09.1994 in

accordance with the OM of 1983, which had no prescribed time limit for

application under compassionate appointment.

6. The learned Single Judge directed the appellant to furnish information of

the status of the application of his mother submitted before the DLC, vide order

dated 15.05.2023 in WP(C) No. 2126/2023. It was held by the learned Single

Judge that the father of the appellant expired on 25.11.1992 and his mother

made an application on 18.10.1994, for compassionate appointment and due to

non-consideration of the case of his mother, the appellant submitted his

application on 20.06.2011, after a delay of 19 years without any explanation.

The writ petition of the appellant was dismissed vide order dated 05.06.2023.

7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the

impugned order dated 16.03.2022, suffers from prima facie illegality, inasmuch

as, the learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that when the appellant's

father passed away, he was a minor. His mother's prayer for appointment on

compassionate ground was rejected. On coming of age, the appellant finally Page No.# 6/9

submitted the aforementioned application for appointment. It has been fervently

submitted that when the appellant's mother submitted the application in

accordance with the OM of 1983, no time limit for such application was

prescribed. Subsequently, the OM of 2009 came into force and the appellant

attained majority and submitted his application for compassionate appointment

on 20.06.2011, without any delay from the date of the appellant attaining his

majority, i.e., on 15.08.2010. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge did

not consider the ratio of the Judgment and Order dated 04.01.2023, passed in

WP(C) No. 1/2023. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellant that while

deciding the issue, it was not appreciated that the DLC had rejected the

application for late submission, without assigning any reasons and without

considering the fact that the appellant was a minor at the time of his father's

death. The order was passed arbitrarily in gross violation of Article 14 and

Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents laid stress in his argument that the

appellant had filed his application for appointment on compassionate ground

after an inexplicable delay of 19 years. The DLC had correctly rejected the

application on the ground that the appellant had attained majority in the year

2007 as his date of birth is 15.08.1989. It was decided by the DLC to reject the

application on the ground of late submission of the application. The appellant Page No.# 7/9

had earlier applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 09.01.2014.

Vide order dated 06.02.2023, the DLC had observed that after duly considering

the earlier application dated 09.01.2014, the earlier order dated 23.12.2014 was

passed. The DLC also held that the earlier order was passed after due

consideration and the subsequent application of the appellant was also rejected

vide order dated 06.02.2023. It is also submitted that vide OM No.

ABP.357/80/VOL-I/303, dated Dispur the 2nd March, 2009 (Annexure-11), the

Department can appoint only one person on compassionate appointment

against 5% quota upto 20 vacancies in a year. The scheme is to give immediate

relief to the distressed family.

9. The applications for appointment under the scheme in the prescribed

format should be submitted within a period of 3 months from the date of death

of the person, to the respective office/Departments under which the person dies

in harness.

10. The 5% of the vacancies in Class-III and Class-IV posts occurring in a year

must be reserved for appointment on compassionate ground. The ceiling of 5%

of direct recruitment vacancies for making compassionate appointment should

not be exceeded.

11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also on consideration Page No.# 8/9

of the materials on record, it is clear that after the death of the appellant's

father, his mother made an application for appointment on compassionate

ground on 18.10.1994. However, the application was rejected, but the

appellant's mother did not agitate at any point of time against the rejection of

her application. Thereafter, the appellant on attaining majority, made an

application on 20.06.2011, after a delay of 19 years. The appellant has stated

that he was only 3 years at the time of his father's death and so, he could not

submit any application at that time. It is also submitted by the appellant that

there was no period of limitation prescribed in the OM of 1983, which was

amended and notified on 02.03.2009. The period of limitation vide Notification

No. ABP.357/80/Vol-I/303 is three months. No application was filed by the

appellant within 3 months. The appellant has submitted that as he was a minor

at that time, he could not file any such application for appointment on

compassionate ground. The prayer of the appellant appears to be too

farfetched. It is submitted that as soon as he attained majority, within one year,

he filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground. By no stretch

of imagination, the limitation can be stretched to such an extent. Already 19

years have passed and the appellant is now a major. He has survived all odds

that came his way. After a period of 19 years the appellant's endeavour to

stretch the period of limitation and link with the rejection of his mother's Page No.# 9/9

application for appointment on compassionate ground is unjustifiable. Moreover

when his mother's application was rejected the same was not subjected to

challenge before any forum. Then, the appellant went a step ahead and tried to

link this rejection order with the date when he attained majority. The appellant's

submissions relating to the delay in submitting his application for appointment

on compassionate ground is totally untenable and cannot be accepted.

12. There appears to be no justified ground to interfere with the impugned

Judgment and order dated 05.06.2023, passed in WP(C) No. 2126/2023,

impugned by the appellant.

13. This appeal is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

14. No order as to cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant