Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010067382023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1892/2023 RATNADEEP ROY S/O LATE RANATOSH ROY, R/O VILL-PINNAGAR, P.S.-KARIMGANJ, P.O.- GIRISHGANJ BAZAR, DIST-KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN-788711 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 ASSAM 3:THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4:TEH JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (B) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 ASSAM 5:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR Page No.# 2/6 GUWAHATI-6 ASSAM 6:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 ASSAM 7:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ ASSAM 8:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ASSAM 9:TEH PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY KARIMGANJ ASSAM 10:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NORTH KARIMGANJ DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GARDASH Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N SARKAR, MR A BANERJEE,MR P K BASU Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., SC, FINANCE,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM ORDER Date : 28/04/2025 Heard Mr. N. Sarkar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent nos. 1,2,3,4,8,9 & 10 and Ms. A. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent nos. 5 & 7. This is the second round of litigation whereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by Page No.# 3/6 filing the present writ petition seeking a Writ of mandamus directing the State Level Committee (SLC) i.e. the respondent no. 5 to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground against a Grade –IV post. The facts and circumstances of the case, giving rise to the filing of the writ petition, are briefly narrated herein below. The deceased father of the writ petitioner viz. late Ranatosh Roy, was serving as Gram Sevak, which is a Grade-III post. He died in harness on 13/05/2015 leaving behind his wife, a son i.e. the petitioner and a daughter. Having lost the sole bread earner of the family, the writ petitioner had submitted an application on 28/12/2015 with a prayer for appointment on compassionate ground. It is the admitted position of fact that on the date of submission of the application, the age of the petitioner was 17 years 3 months 29 days. Therefore, he was a minor on the date of submission of his application. Upon receipt of the application dated 28/12/2015 submitted by the writ petitioner, the District Level Committee (DLC) of Karimganj had considered his application and vide resolution adopted in the meeting dated 20/07/2016, recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment against a Grade- III post. However, the said recommendation of the DLC was rejected by the State Level Committee (SLC) in its meeting held on 15/02/2019, on the ground that the writ petitioner did not have the requisite qualification for being appointed in a Grade-III post. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 6072/2021, inter-alia, contending that the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was in respect of any post and not for any Grade-III post. Therefore, the ground for rejection of the application by the SLC was wholly untenable in the eyes of law. After taking note of the grievance of the petitioner and as agreed to by the learned departmental counsel, WP(C) No. 6072/2021 was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by order dated 17/11/2021 with a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in respect of a Grade-IV post. Pursuant to the above direction, the DLC of Karimganj District vide resolution adopted in the meeting held on 18/01/2022 had made a fresh recommendation in favour of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground against a Grade-IV post in terms of para 5 of the OM dated 01/06/2015 issued by the Government of Assam whereby, it was provided that if sufficient vacancies were not available in any particular office to accommodate the persons in the wait list for compassionate appointment, it would be open for the administrative Department/Office to take up the matter with other Department/Offices of the Government to provide early appointment on compassionate ground to those in the waiting list. Page No.# 4/6 Notwithstanding such recommendation of the DLC, the SLC vide resolution adopted in its meeting held on 02/08/2022, had once again rejected the application of the writ petitioner, on this occasion merely on the ground that the writ petitioner was below 18 years of age on the date of submission of the application. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed. By inviting the attention of this Court to the original recommendation of the DLC adopted in its meeting held on 20/07/2016, Mr. N. Sarkar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has argued that it is no doubt correct that on 28/12/2015, when the application for compassionate appointment was submitted by the petitioner, he was below 18 years of age. However, the said fact was duly taken note of by the DLC whereby, a decision was also taken to keep the application pending till 29/08/2016, on which date, the writ petitioner would attain the age of 18 years. Accordingly, his application was kept pending to be taken up only after the writ petitioner had attained majority i.e. the age of 18 years. Under the circumstances and in view of the intervening developments, Mr. Sarkar submits that the claim of the writ petitioner could not have been rejected by the SLC by ignoring the mandate of the order dated 17/11/2021 passed by this Court, merely on the ground that when the application was originally submitted, the writ petitioner was below the age of 18 years. In support of his arguments, Mr. Sarkar has relied upon the decisions of this Court rendered in the case of Hanif Ahmed Laskar Vs. the State of Assam, rep. by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Gau 4 as well as in the case of Anupam Saikia Vs. State of Assam, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Gau 737. Responding to the above arguments, Ms. A. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate, Assam, has submitted that since the application for compassionate appointment was submitted by a minor, the same could not have been acted upon by the DLC or the SLC and, therefore, the SLC has rightly rejected the application submitted by the writ petitioner since the same was not valid, as on the date of submission of the same. Urging that law is well settled that an application of a minor cannot be entertained for appointment on compassionate ground, Ms. Talukdar has further argued that since the SLC has rejected the application of the petitioner on a valid ground, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the impugned resolution of the SLC. I have considered the arguments made at the Bar and have also gone through the materials available on record. The basic facts of the case are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that on 28/12/2015, when the writ petitioner had submitted his application seeking appointment on compassionate Page No.# 5/6 ground, he was aged below 18 years. As such, there can be no doubt about the fact that the writ petitioner was not eligible, as on 28/12/2015, to seek appointment on compassionate ground. Be that as it may, a perusal of the resolution dated 20/07/2016 of the DLC, Karimganj, unequivocally goes to show that the DLC was aware of the said fact and accordingly, had kept the claim of the petitioner pending till the time he attains the prescribed age for entry into Government service. There is no dispute about the fact that the application of the petitioner was not returned by the DLC on the ground that he was a minor on the date of filing the same. Not only that, the SLC also did not reject his application, vide resolution dated 15/02/2019, on the ground that the petitioner was under aged but his prayer was turned down only on the ground that he was not qualified for being appointed against a Grade-III post. In the case of Hanif Ahmed Laskar(supra), this Court, while taking note of similar fact situation and while dealing with a question of similar nature, had made the following observations in para 3, which are reproduced herein below for ready reference :- “3. Being aggrieved, this writ petition is instituted. The law of compassionate appointment has its own procedure and principles to be followed and the general principle applicable to a regular recruitment would not be applicable. It was always open for the respondent authorities to have rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that he had not attained the requisite age for a government employment, provided the said application was placed before the DLC concerned at the appropriate time. But having not done so and allowing the application to remain pending for almost more than 13 years, now the ground of its rejection that the petitioner was 15 years 8 months 26 days on the date of submission of the application would be inapplicable, inasmuch as, it is an application for compassionate appointment and not an application for regular recruitment.” The said view has further been reiterated and reaffirmed in the decision rendered in the case of Anupam Saikia (Supra). What would be significant to note herein is that, as has been indicated herein above, the DLC had not returned the application of the writ petitioner but had kept it pending. Had the application been rejected and/or returned on the ground that the petitioner was a minor, he would have had the opportunity of submitting the same afresh, upon attaining majority, which opportunity was not available to the petitioner since his claim for appointment on compassionate ground was kept pending. Even the SLC did not decline the request of the petitioner by its resolution dated 15/02/2019 Page No.# 6/6 on the ground of the petitioner being under aged. On the contrary, it can be seen that the writ petitioner had attained the age of 18 years as on 18/01/2022 i.e. the date on which the DLC had made a recommendation in favour of the writ petitioner pursuant to the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 17/11/2021. Under such circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be rejected at this point of time, merely on the ground that he was aged below 18 years on the date of submission of the application. Considering the law laid down in the case of Hanif Ahmed Laskar(supra), this Court is also of the opinion that this being a case of appointment on compassionate ground, the SLC was not correct in declining the prayer of the petitioner merely on the ground that he was below 18 years on the date of submission of the application. This Court is, therefore, of the view that having regard to the facts and and circumstances of the case, the grounds taken by the SLC for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner is wholly un-tenable in the eyes of law. On the contrary, in view of the specific direction issued by this Court by order dated 17/11/2021, the SLC was duty bound to consider and process the application of the petitioner for appointment against a Grade-IV post, in accordance with law. However, the SLC, in the opinion of this Court, had failed to do so in the present case without any valid reason. Therefore, this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the writ petition must succeed and the same is hereby allowed. The SLC is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground against any Grade-IV post in the district of Karimganj and issue necessary order(s) accordingly. The consideration, as per the order of this Court, be made in the next meeting of the SLC. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned Government Advocate, Assam, for necessary compliance. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant