Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DAILYLAW 1582 (GAU)

BHASKAR BORO v. THE STATE OF ASSAM and 3 ORS.

WP(C)/6009/2017 · 2026-03-11

N Unni Krishnan Nair

Writ Petition (Civil)body2017

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010260822017 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6009/2017 BHASKAR BORO S/O. LT. NIRANJAN BORO, VILL. CHAKRAPANI, P.O. KINANGAON, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and 3 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER KAMRUPR 4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER KAMRUP R AMINGAON GUWAHATI-31 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.H KHAKLAERY, MR.P K DAS,MR.R BAISHYA,MR.S R RABHA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 12.03.2026 None appears for the petitioner even on second call. 2. Mr. P.K Borah, learned standing counsel, Education Department, Assam, is present. 3. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. The father of the petitioner Late Niranjan Boro while working as a Chowkidar, Grade-IV in Chakrapani M.V School under Boko Educational Block, District-Kamrup, had died in harness on 19.03.2011. The petitioner, thereafter, on 14.06.2011, submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, has projected that although he had, within the time frame prescribed, submitted his application for appointment on compassionate grounds, the said application was not considered by the constituted committees and accordingly, the petitioner has been deprived of his appointment on compassionate grounds. 5. Mr. P K Borah, learned standing counsel, Education Department, Assam, has placed on record the instructions received by him from the jurisdictional District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO) which, on perusal, reveals that the application of the petitioner was placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC) in its meeting held on 29.05.2013. However, the case of the petitioner was not recommended for the reason that there was no vacant post available within the 5% quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds. A copy of the relevant portion of the minutes of the meeting of the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC) has also been brought on record, which has been perused. Page No.# 3/3 6. The father of the petitioner, admittedly, had died on 19.03.2011 and the petitioner had submitted his application on 14.06.2011. After a long lapse of 14 (Fourteen) years, since the date of death of the father, the crisis that had occasioned at the time of death of the father in harness i.e. on 19.03.2011 is found to have been overcome and the sense of immediacy for effecting appointments on compassionate grounds, in respect of the petitioner, is found to have been lost. The family is found to have sustained, despite the fact that neither the petitioner nor any other family member, was accommodated against a Government post by extending to them appointment on compassionate grounds. 7. The delay occasioning in the matter since the date of death of the father of the petitioner, has rendered the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds to be a stale one. Such application would not now be permissible to be directed to be for considered for appointment on compassionate grounds [Refer: State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. reported in 2025 (5) SCC 712]. 8. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, is not entitled to a direction upon the respondent authorities for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds at this later stage. 9. As none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner even on second call, this Court refrains from dismissing the present writ petition on its merits and the present writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant