Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010086042023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2401/2023 MINU DAS W/O LATE BIDHYADHAR DAS R/O VILL- SANPARA P.O. JHAROBARI P.S. PALASHBARI DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM PIN-781101 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOREST DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS ARANYA BHAWAN PUNJABARI GUWAHATI-37 ASSAM 3:CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS ARANYA BHAWAN PUNJABARI GUWAHATI-37 ASSAM 4:DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER Page No.# 2/3 KAMRUP WEST DIVISION BAMUNIGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J KALITA, MS S KAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER Date : -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ::ORDER:: 10.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. J Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Although the respondents were represented by learned counsel, however, none represents them today, when the matter is called up. 2. The petitioner's case is that the State Level Committee (SLC) in its Meeting Minutes dated 01.04.2015 has neither recommended nor rejected the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment and has kept the fate of the petitioner's application undecided. 3. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner's father, who was working in the Forest Department as Forest Guard in the Divisional Forests Office, West Kamrup Division, who died in harness on 10.07.2007. The petitioner's application for compassionate appointment dated 02.11.2007 was considered by the SLC on 01.04.2015, wherein the observation made by the SLC was that it had considered the petitioner's application. Page No.# 3/3 4. The SLC's observation "Considered" does not indicate whether the petitioner's case has been accepted for recommendation or rejected. No materials have been placed before the Court by the respondents to show that the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the SLC. No presumption can be drawn that the case of the petitioner was rejected in the absence of any cogent materials that the petitioner's candidature was rejected. As such, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's application will have to be re-considered by the SLC, who should thereafter pass specific orders as to whether the petitioner's application is to be recommended or rejected by giving proper reasons. 5. Accordingly, the State respondents are directed to place the petitioner's application before the next SLC for re-consideration, who shall thereafter take a decision on the same by giving a definite discernible decision. This direction of the Court shall be carried out within 60(sixty) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 6. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant