Jahid Islam vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3468 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010114392023




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/3063/2023

         JAHID ISLAM
         S/O LATE NURUL ISLAM, VILL- MURARA WARD NO. 3, P.O.-RANGIA, P.S.-
         RANGIA, DIST-KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN-781354



         VERSUS

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

         2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
         ASSAM
          KAHILIPARA
          GUWAHATI-19

         3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
          KAMRUP (R)
         AMINGAON
          GUWAHATI-36

         4:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
          RANGIA EDUCATION BLOCK
          KAMRUP (R)
         ASSAM

         5:THE D.I. OF SCHOOLS
          KAMRUP RURAL
         AMINGAON
          GUWAHATI-781031

         6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                                                                             Page No.# 2/3

             KAMRUP
             ASSAM
             -CUM- THE CHAIRMAN
             DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
             AMINGAON
             KAMRUP
             ASSAM
             PIN-78103

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS. S B CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU




                                 BEFORE
            HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

                                         ORDER

Date : 30-08-2023

Heard Ms. SB Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ganesh Pegu, learned counsel for the respondents in the Elementary Education Department and Mr. G Pegu, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup.

2. The father of the petitioner Nurul Islam, who as a Head Teacher in the Maranjana M.E.M. in the Kamrup district, died in harness on 07.06.2015 and on his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 06.07.2015. The said application was considered by the DLC of Kamrup district in its meeting held on 01.03.2017 and was rejected by providing that the proposal does not meet the 3 years of service criteria of the deceased employee & according to Point No. 1 of the Govt. OM No. ABP 50/2006/Pt/182 dtd. 01/06/2015, meaning thereby that there was less than three years between the date of death and date of usual retirement and therefore, under Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, the petitioner is not entitled to a Page No.# 3/3

compassionate appointment.

3. It is pointed out that by the judgment dated 30.01.2023 in WP(C) No. 1646/2021 and other writ petitions, in paragraph 17 thereof, the Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 had been set aside on the ground of being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. As the Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 itself had been set aside, we are of the view that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment needs to be reconsidered inasmuch as, it was earlier rejected as there was less than three years of service remaining by invoking the provision of Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015.

5. Accordingly, the rejection of the DLC of Kamrup dated 01.03.2017 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the DLC of Kamrup for a fresh consideration. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner be now placed before the next available DLC of Kamrup district.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant