Gauhati High Court
Imdadul Bari Barbhuiya vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 30 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010108322025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2749/2025
IMDADUL BARI BARBHUIYA
SON OF LATE AZIR UDDIN
VILL- CHANDRAPUR PT.II
P.O. CHANDRAPUR
DIST. HAILAKANDI,ASSAM
PIN-788165
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.
2:THE CHAIRMAN OF STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC)
FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
4:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER (DEEO)
HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 788151.
6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT LEVEL
Page No.# 2/5
COMMITTEE (DLC)
HAILAKANDI FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND
HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN-78815
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HOSSAIN, MR N SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
ORDER
Date : 30.05.2025.
Heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. And also heard Ms. K.
Phukan, learned State Counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 3 & 6 and Mr. P.K.
Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department appearing
for the respondent Nos.4 & 5.
Having considered the limited grievance raised in this writ petition, the same is
disposed of by this order, at the motion stage.
The father of the petitioner, namely, Late Azir Uddin, who was serving as a
Headmaster of the Betcherra Bonopolly M.E. School in District of Hailakandi, had
died-in-harness on 06.06.2006. The petitioner claims to be the son of the said
deceased Govt. employee, has applied for appointment on compassionate
ground on 19.08.2013, on attaining the age of majority.
The grievance of the petitioner is that his claim for appointment on
compassionate ground was initially rejected by the District Level Committee
Page No.# 3/5
(DLC), Hailakandi by its minutes dated 05.10.2021 and being aggrieved, the
petitioner approached this Court vide WP(C) No.3418/2022. During the
pendency of the said writ petition, the case of the petitioner was considered by
the DLC, Hailakandi and recommended his name. Accordingly, the petitioner has
withdrawn the said writ petition which was allowed on 09.02.2024.
The DLC, Hailakandi recommended the name of the petitioner to be placed
before the State Level Committee (SLC) for consideration of the case of the
petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on 19.09.2023.
It is contended by the petitioner that despite the recommendation by the DLC,
Hailakandi, the SLC has not considered the case of the petitioner as on date.
Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the
pendency for consideration of the case of the petitioner, the State respondents
have issued the O.M. dated 18.09.2024, whereby the authorities have decided
not to entertain any case claiming appointment on compassionate ground. He
submits that the O.M. dated 18.09.2024 was put to challenge by some of the
petitioners in a batch of writ petitions, leading case being WP(C) No.342/2025
and others, which were disposed of by the order dated 03.04.2025. Although,
this Court has not interfered with the said O.M. dated 18.09.2024, a direction
was issued to the respondent authorities to consider those cases which were
pending before 18.09.2024. He submits that in view of the order dated
03.04.2025, in the above batch of writ petitions, the case of the petitioner may
also be directed to be considered as the said order squarely covers the case of
the petitioner.
Ms. K. Phukan, learned State Counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 3 & 6 and Mr.
P.K. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department
Page No.# 4/5
appearing for the respondent Nos.4 & 5 have fairly submitted that the order of
this Court dated 03.04.2025, in fact would cover the case of the petitioner.
Having considered that the issue of similar nature has been considered and
disposed of by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, leading case being WP(C)
No.342/2025, and after consideration of submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and also perusal of the said order dated 03.04.2025, I am of the
considered view that the said order would cover the case of the petitioner.
The order dated 03.04.2025, passed in WP(C) No.342/2025 and other batch of
writ petitions are reproduced here-in-below:-
"9. In view of the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, all the writ petitions that are
pending as on today, i.e., 03.04.2025, in the Gauhati High Court, which have put to challenge
the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024, are to be decided as follows:-
(i) All the applications for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioners shall be
considered and disposed of by the concerned DLC/SLC on merit, by taking into Page No.# 4/5
consideration the various guidelines prior to 01.04.2017, laid down by the State Government
for compassionate appointment and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High
Court. Consequently, the rejection of all compassionate appointments by the DLC/SLC, which
have been put to challenge and are pending in the Gauhati High Court as on 03.04.2025, are
set aside.
(ii) The entire process for considering the various applications for compassionate appointment
and the decision to be taken in each case by the concerned authorities, should be completed
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the
concerned District Commissioner, who is also the Chairman of the DLC, if the matter pertains
to the DLC. In other cases, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, who is the
Chairman of the SLC, if the matter pertains the SLC.
10. It is made clear that in view of the consent of the parties, this Court has not gone into the
merits of any of the petitioners' cases that are being disposed of by way of this order and as
such, the applications for compassionate appointment should be disposed of by the concerned
authorities on merit, as they deem it fit and proper. The decision/s to be taken by the concerned
authorities should be based on reasons and the decision taken should be communicated to the
petitioners thereafter. It is also directed that while deciding the applications for compassionate
appointment, the respondents cannot take recourse to the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024,
though the judgment provided therein, i.e., the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), can be
considered/applied by the concerned authorities. It is again made clear that this order cannot
be used as a precedent for cases that are filed on 04.04.2025 and thereafter. It shall only apply
to cases that are pending before this Court as on 03.04.2025.
11. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of."
Page No.# 5/5
In view of above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing
the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, it
is directed that the respondents, particularly, the State Level Committee shall
consider the case of the petitioner, in terms of the recommendation made by
the DLC, Hailakandi, dated 19.09.2023, in the next sitting of the Committee.
Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above direction.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
