Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010073162025 2025:GAU-AS:4221 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1966/2025 MIJINGCHA MUCHAHARY S/O- LATE ANIL MUCHAHARY, R/O- VILL- MANIKPUR, P.O.- SIMEN CHAPORI, P.S. JONAI, DIST- DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN- 787061. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY- 781006. 2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DISPUR GHY-781006. 4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019. 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER (DEEO) DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057. 6:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS JONAI DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057. Page No.# 2/4 7:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHEMAJI-CUM-CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC) FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N SARMA, MR. D BHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 07.04.2025 Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned counsel for the State respondents and Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the Elementary Education Department. 2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner’s father died in harness on 05.10.2008 and the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 08.08.2009. As the petitioner was of the view that his application for compassionate appointment had not been considered by the authorities, he filed WP(C) No.4845/2023. However, the writ petition was dismissed, vide order dated 05.01.2024, in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari, reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 219. 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that subsequent to the dismissal of WP(C) No.4845/2023, the petitioner has filed a review petition, which has not been Page No.# 3/4 decided till date. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in the meantime, the State respondents have issued the O.M. dated 18.09.2024, by which a decision has been taken by the authorities that the applications for compassionate appointment would not be considered pertaining to cases where a Government servant had died prior to 01.04.2017, in view of the lapse of a long period of time. He submits that a batch of writ petitions, the lead case being WP(C) No.342/2025, have been disposed of, vide order dated 03.04.2025, wherein a challenge had been made to the O.M. dated 18.09.2024. 4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as a challenge has been made to the O.M. dated 18.09.2024 in this writ petition, the present case should also be disposed of in terms of the order dated 03.04.2025 passed in WP(C) No.342/2025. 5. As can be seen from the averments made in the writ petition and the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of WP(C) No.4845/2023, regarding non consideration of his application for compassionate appointment, pursuant to his father having died in harness. This Court, vide order dated 05.01.2024, dismissed WP(C) No.4845/2023, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Debabrata Tiwari (supra). As such, as on date, the order dated 05.01.2024 passed in WP(C) No.4845/2023 does not change the fact that the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment had been dismissed. No order has been shown by the petitioner to the effect that the order dated 05.01.2024 passed in WP(C) No.4845/2023 has been stayed or set aside in any review petition or appeal. 6. This Court is of the view that as the order dated 05.01.2024 passed in Page No.# 4/4 WP(C) No.4845/2023 has attained finality as on date, there is no question of the petitioner having any locus standi to make a challenge to the O.M. dated 18.09.2024. 7. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any reason to entertain this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant