Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010263172022 2023:GAU-AS:8476 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/8224/2022 HAMIDA BEGUM D/O- LT. NURUL ISLAM, R/O- BATAYA, P.O. MULLAGANJ, DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN- 788719 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM CUM CHAIRMAN STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE, DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE SECRETARY CUM MEMBER SECRETARY STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPTT. GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY-6 3:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GHY-19 ASSAM 4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN DY. COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER KARIMGANJ ASSA Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I ALAM, MR. T SK,Ms. R. R. BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : SR. GA, ASSAM, SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 11.06.2026 Heard Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. G. Pegu, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent No.3. 2. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the minutes of the meeting of the State Level Committee (SLC) for compassionate appointment held on 26.08.2022, whereby the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 3. The case of the petitioner is that his father, late Nurul Islam, who was working as an Assistant Teacher in Kanakpur M.E. Madrassa under the South Karimganj Block, died in harness on 28.11.2013, leaving behind the petitioner along with his mother, two sons, and two daughters. On attaining majority, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment before the authority by submitting a representation on 01.12.2017. Thereafter, she acquired the qualification of Graduation and D.El.Ed. However, the respondent authority did not consider her case for compassionate appointment. As such, she approached this Court, and the co-ordinate bench, after hearing the parties, disposed of the writ petition by order dated 10.05.2022, directing the District Elementary Page No.# 3/5 Education Officer, Karimganj (DEEO), Karimganj, to place the case of the petitioner by condoning the delay in submitting the application for compassionate appointment. 4. Pursuant thereto, the District Level Committee (DLC) considered the case of the petitioner and recommended her appointment as Assistant Teacher at LP level on the ground of the poor financial condition of the family and in compliance with the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 10.05.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 2991/2022. However, the State Level Committee (SLC), in its meeting dated 26.08.2022, rejected the case of the petitioner solely on the ground that the deceased, late Nurul Islam, had less than three years of service remaining at the time of his death. Therefore, he did not satisfy the requirement contained in Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, which prescribed a minimum balance of three years of service for consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment. 5. From the records and submissions of the parties, it appears that there is no dispute that the petitioner’s father was serving as an Assistant Teacher at Kanakpur M.E. Madrassa under the South Karimganj Block and died in harness on 28.11.2013, leaving behind the petitioner along with his mother, two sons, and two daughters. The petitioner, being a dependent family member of the deceased employee, submitted a representation dated 01.12.2017 seeking appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme along with all relevant educational qualification certificates. The same was considered by the District Level Committee (DLC), which recommended the petitioner’s appointment as Assistant Teacher at LP school level on the ground of the poor financial condition of the family and also in compliance with the order of this Court dated 10.05.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 2991/2022. However, the said Page No.# 4/5 claim was rejected by the State Level Committee (SLC) solely on account of the condition contained in Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. 6. It is also not in dispute that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by judgment and order dated 30.01.2023 passed in analogous writ petitions, the lead case being WP(C) No. 1646/2021, declared Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, in so far as it prescribes the requirement of a minimum balance of three years of service of the deceased employee, to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1646/2021 directed the authorities to consider the cases of applicants whose claims had been rejected solely on the basis of Clause 1 of the said Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. 7. The said judgment and order dated 30.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 1646/2021 was challenged by the State authorities in Writ Appeal No. 287/2023 and connected appeals. However, the Division Bench, by judgment and order dated 12.12.2025, affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ appeals, with an observation that the statutory authority, while deciding the cases of the private respondents, shall appropriately apply the law relating to compassionate appointment. 8. In the present case, the sole reason for rejection of the petitioner’s claim was the operation of Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. However, since the said Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum has been declared unconstitutional, and the said declaration having attained finality upon affirmation by the Division Bench, the basis on which the petitioner’s claim was rejected no longer survives. Page No.# 5/5 9. In that view of the matter, the decision of the State Level Committee contained in the minutes dated 26.08.2022, insofar as it rejects the petitioner’s claim on the strength of Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, cannot be sustained in law. The same is accordingly set aside. 10. As a result, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 11. The matter is remanded back to the State Level Committee (State), with a direction to consider the petitioner’s claim for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme afresh, without reference to or reliance upon the condition relating to minimum balance of three years of service contained in Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. It is further directed that the petitioner’s case shall be considered strictly in accordance with the applicable policy/scheme governing compassionate appointment, taking into account that the petitioner’s case was earlier recommended by the DLC, Karimganj on 27.05.2022, subject to fulfillment of all other eligibility conditions. 12. The appropriate authority shall undertake the aforesaid exercise and pass a reasoned order within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant