[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 18 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010253232024
2026:GAU-AS:2420
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6514/2024
AZAHAR UDDIN
SON OF LATE NURUL ISLAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- HAIDUBI,
P.O.- KADAMONI,
P.S.- BATADRAVA,
DISTRICT- NAGAON, ASSAM,
PIN- 782122.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI- 781019.
3:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) FOR APPOINTMENT ON
COMPASSIONATE GROUND
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM- CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER-CUM- CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT LEVEL
COMMITTEE (DLC)
FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND
Page No.# 2/5
NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J ABEDIN, MR N SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 18.02.2026
Heard Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. P.N. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos. 1 & 2, and Ms. S. Baruah, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed seeking a direction for appointment of the
petitioner to the post of Grade-IV in place of his elder brother namely
Md. Azizul Hoque, who expired on 07.11.2023 before the issuance of
the appointment order in his favour. In the alternative, a prayer has
been made for consideration of the petitioner's case for appointment
on compassionate grounds in any suitable post commensurate with his
qualification, he being the younger son of the deceased government
employee, Late Nurul Islam, who died in harness on 26.04.2012. A
further consequential relief has also been sought to permit the
petitioner to work as a Grade-IV employee in the concerned school in
pursuance of the appointment order dated 01.07.2024.
Page No.# 3/5
3. The brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the
petitioner's father, Late Nurul Islam, while serving as an Assistant
Teacher in Haidobi Rampur Satra Boys' M.E. Madrassa under Nagaon
district, expired in harness on 26.04.2012 leaving behind his wife, two
daughters, and two sons, including the petitioner. Immediately
thereafter the elder son, Md. Azizul Hoque, applied for compassionate
appointment. Though his claim was initially rejected as time-barred,
the matter was reconsidered pursuant to the judgment & order dated
08.06.2022 passed by this court in WP(C) No. 3759/2022, whereby the
case was remanded to the District Level Committee, Nagaon. Upon
reconsideration, the DLC, Nagaon, recommended the case to the State
Level Committee, and the SLC in its meeting, approved the
appointment of Md. Azizul Hoque to the post of Grade-IV in Swahid
Chandan Singh High School. The said recommendation was approved
by the government on 21.06.2024, and an appointment order dated
01.07.2024 was issued. However, while the case of Md. Azizul Hoque
was under consideration, he expired on 07.11.2023. Hence, the
appointment order could not be effectuated. In the above backdrop,
the present writ petition has been instituted by the younger son of the
deceased employee.
4. Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
contends that since the petitioner's brother was recommended and
appointed under the compassionate appointment scheme but died
prior to joining, the petitioner ought to be accommodated against the
same post. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner's case
deserves independent consideration for compassionate appointment
Page No.# 4/5
on account of the death of his father while in service.
5. Per contra, Ms. S. Baruah, learned Additional Government
Advocate, strongly opposes the petition and submits that
compassionate appointment does not confer any vested or heritable
right. It is argued that the petitioner cannot claim automatic
substitution merely because his brother expired before issuance of the
appointment order. It is further contended that the death of the
petitioner's father occurred as far back as on 26.04.2012, and
therefore the very object and immediacy underlining the
compassionate appointment scheme stand defeated by the afflux of
time. Compassionate appointment, it is urged, is not a mode of regular
recruitment.
6. I have considered the rival submissions advanced at the bar and
have carefully perused the materials placed on record.
7. It is an undisputed position that the petitioner's father expired in
harness on 26.04.2012, i.e., almost 12 years prior to the filing of the
present writ petition. It is also a matter of record that though the
petitioner's brother was ultimately recommended for appointment
under the compassionate scheme, he unfortunately passed away
before the issuance of the appointment order.
8. Be that as it may, the petitioner does not acquire any legal right
to claim appointment to the post which was offered to his deceased
brother. Compassionate appointment is an exception carved out to the
general rule of public employment and is intended solely to provide
immediate succor to the family of a government employee who dies in
Page No.# 5/5
harness, leaving the family in financial distress. The element of
immediacy is, therefore, the cornerstone of such appointments.
9. In the present case, the lapse of nearly 12 years since the death
of the petitioner's father clearly disentitles the petitioner from seeking
appointment under the compassionate scheme. The scheme cannot be
invoked as a matter of course, nor can it be stretched to accommodate
claims long after the crisis arising from the employee's death has
passed. In the absence of any legal right, this court, while exercising
its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, cannot issue a mandamus for
appointment.
10. For the reasons stated above, this court finds no merit in the writ
petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order to costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
