Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010036862024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1028/2024 ASHRAFUL ALAM S/O- LATE ABU BAKKAR @ ABU BAKKAR SIDDIK, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- HELOCHAR PAM, P.O. NALI GAON, P.S. SATHEBAR, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (ELEMENTARY) DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM 4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC) REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA ASSAM 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER BARPETA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSA Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. S Z B AKLAS, MR. A M S MAZUMDER Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 30.01.2026 Heard Mr. A.M.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G Pegu learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a consideration for compassionate appointment by alleging that the initial consideration given to the petitioner by the District Level Committee, Barpeta District on 08.04.2022, had appreciated facts wrongly and rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of non submission of his proposal though proper channel. This Court notices that the father of the petitioner had expired on 17.01.2023 when he was a minor and on attaining majority the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on 23.05.2016. After two rounds of litigation this is the third litigation before this Court. This Court has already recorded the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari reported in 2023 Live Law SC 175, the writ petition of the petitioner does not need to be entertained. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner for sometime, this Court finds that the death of the deceased that is the father of the petitioner having occurred in the year 2003 and the family of the deceased and having survived for a period of 23years, the delay the long lapse of time, act against the interest of the petitioner in the present case. Perusal of the writ-petitioner does not reveal that the petitioner has made any statement regarding his financial status. In view of the above, this Court is constrained to reject the prayers in the writ Page No.# 3/3 petition. Writ petition accordingly closed. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant