Bibhuti Konwar vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4186 Gua

                                                              Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010037542023




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/1129/2023

         BIBHUTI KONWAR
         S/O- LATE PRAFULLA KONWAR,
         R/O- NAOPARA,
         P.O.- BAIN ROJABARI,
         PS.- DEMOW,
         DIST. SIBSAGAR, ASSAM.
         PIN- 785671.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
         DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY),
         DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

         2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC)
          REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY -CUM- CHAIRMAN

         STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) FOR APPOINTMENT ON
         COMPASSIONATE GROUND

         DISPUR
         GUWAHATI- 781006.

         3:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC)
          REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          SIBSAGAR

         SIBSAGAR
         ASSAM
         PIN- 785640.
                                                                             Page No.# 2/3

            4:THE DIRECTOR
             ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
            ASSAM
             KAHILIPARA
             GUWAHATI- 19.

            5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER (DEEO)
             SIBASAGAR
             SIBASAGAR
            ASSAM

            PIN- 785640.

            6:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER (BEEO)
             DEMOW
             PO AND PS- DEMOW

            DISTRICT- SIBSAGAR
            ASSAM.
            PIN- 78566

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S U AHMED

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU




                                         BEFORE
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
                                         O R D E R

09.10.2023

The petitioner assails the minutes of the DLC of Sivsagar dated 07.11.2015. A prima facie illegality in the recommendation of the DLC is noticed that the DLC had ventured into a merit evaluation of the respective candidates rather than inter-se comparison, which is against the principle of compassionate appointment. In compassionate appointment, the DLC is not sitting as a recruiting agency or a selection committee to make a merit evaluation. From such point of view, the recommendation is required to be set aside inasmuch as, Page No.# 3/3

the recommended candidates were also recommended without following the due procedure of law.

But, however, the petition is filed after eight years. From such point of view, the petitioner to explain as to why the writ petition should not be dismissed for delay and laches taking note of paragraph 7 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India -vs- Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648, wherein it is provided that if the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which relate or affect several other parties and if the re- opening the issue would affect the settled right of the third parties, then the claim would not be entitled.

List the matter after the vacation.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant