Jyoti Taid vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2176 Gua

                                                               Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010108812023




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

                         Case No. : WP(C)/2850/2023

         JYOTI TAID
         SON OF LATE MUHIRAM TAID,
         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BORKHAMUKH MAJ GAON,
         P.O.- BORKHAMUKH (VIA DHAKUAKHANA),
         DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
         SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
         DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

         2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
         ASSAM
          KAHILIPARA
          GUWAHATI- 781019.

         3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
          LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT CIRCLE
          NORTH LAKHIMPUR
         ASSAM.

         4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHAIRMAN
          DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
          LAKHIMPUR
         ASSAM.

         5:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE
          REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY

         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
                                                                              Page No.# 2/2


            GUWAHATI-6

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MRS. K DEVI

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.




                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

                                          ORDER

24-05-2023 Heard Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. The issue involved in this case is rejection of the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground with a reason that the incumbent who had died-in-harness did not have the adequate number of service period left.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue has been resolved by this Court wherein interference has been made in similar cases.

However, Shri G. Bokalial, learned State Counsel has submitted that the aforesaid judgment is the subject matter of an appeal which is presently pending before the Hon'ble Division Bench. It however transpires that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation and only notices have been issued in the delay condonation application.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the matter be taken up after a period of 15 (fifteen) days to enable the learned State Counsel to take appropriate steps. It is however made clear that mere filing of an appeal, that too with delay condonation application may not be a sufficient ground not to follow the judgment of a Coordinate Bench.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant