Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010108322025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2749/2025 IMDADUL BARI BARBHUIYA SON OF LATE AZIR UDDIN VILL- CHANDRAPUR PT.II P.O. CHANDRAPUR DIST. HAILAKANDI,ASSAM PIN-788165 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE CHAIRMAN OF STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 4:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER (DEEO) HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788151. 6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT LEVEL Page No.# 2/5 COMMITTEE (DLC) HAILAKANDI FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-78815 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HOSSAIN, MR N SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE O R D E R Date : 30.05.2025. Heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. And also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned State Counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 3 & 6 and Mr. P.K. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department appearing for the respondent Nos.4 & 5. Having considered the limited grievance raised in this writ petition, the same is disposed of by this order, at the motion stage. The father of the petitioner, namely, Late Azir Uddin, who was serving as a Headmaster of the Betcherra Bonopolly M.E. School in District of Hailakandi, had died-in-harness on 06.06.2006. The petitioner claims to be the son of the said deceased Govt. employee, has applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 19.08.2013, on attaining the age of majority. The grievance of the petitioner is that his claim for appointment on compassionate ground was initially rejected by the District Level Committee Page No.# 3/5 (DLC), Hailakandi by its minutes dated 05.10.2021 and being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court vide WP(C) No.3418/2022. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the case of the petitioner was considered by the DLC, Hailakandi and recommended his name. Accordingly, the petitioner has withdrawn the said writ petition which was allowed on 09.02.2024. The DLC, Hailakandi recommended the name of the petitioner to be placed before the State Level Committee (SLC) for consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on 19.09.2023. It is contended by the petitioner that despite the recommendation by the DLC, Hailakandi, the SLC has not considered the case of the petitioner as on date. Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency for consideration of the case of the petitioner, the State respondents have issued the O.M. dated 18.09.2024, whereby the authorities have decided not to entertain any case claiming appointment on compassionate ground. He submits that the O.M. dated 18.09.2024 was put to challenge by some of the petitioners in a batch of writ petitions, leading case being WP(C) No.342/2025 and others, which were disposed of by the order dated 03.04.2025. Although, this Court has not interfered with the said O.M. dated 18.09.2024, a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to consider those cases which were pending before 18.09.2024. He submits that in view of the order dated 03.04.2025, in the above batch of writ petitions, the case of the petitioner may also be directed to be considered as the said order squarely covers the case of the petitioner. Ms. K. Phukan, learned State Counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 3 & 6 and Mr. P.K. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department Page No.# 4/5 appearing for the respondent Nos.4 & 5 have fairly submitted that the order of this Court dated 03.04.2025, in fact would cover the case of the petitioner. Having considered that the issue of similar nature has been considered and disposed of by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, leading case being WP(C) No.342/2025, and after consideration of submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perusal of the said order dated 03.04.2025, I am of the considered view that the said order would cover the case of the petitioner. The order dated 03.04.2025, passed in WP(C) No.342/2025 and other batch of writ petitions are reproduced here-in-below:- “9. In view of the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, all the writ petitions that are pending as on today, i.e., 03.04.2025, in the Gauhati High Court, which have put to challenge the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024, are to be decided as follows:- (i) All the applications for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioners shall be considered and disposed of by the concerned DLC/SLC on merit, by taking into Page No.# 4/5 consideration the various guidelines prior to 01.04.2017, laid down by the State Government for compassionate appointment and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court. Consequently, the rejection of all compassionate appointments by the DLC/SLC, which have been put to challenge and are pending in the Gauhati High Court as on 03.04.2025, are set aside. (ii) The entire process for considering the various applications for compassionate appointment and the decision to be taken in each case by the concerned authorities, should be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the concerned District Commissioner, who is also the Chairman of the DLC, if the matter pertains to the DLC. In other cases, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, who is the Chairman of the SLC, if the matter pertains the SLC. 10. It is made clear that in view of the consent of the parties, this Court has not gone into the merits of any of the petitioners’ cases that are being disposed of by way of this order and as such, the applications for compassionate appointment should be disposed of by the concerned authorities on merit, as they deem it fit and proper. The decision/s to be taken by the concerned authorities should be based on reasons and the decision taken should be communicated to the petitioners thereafter. It is also directed that while deciding the applications for compassionate appointment, the respondents cannot take recourse to the impugned OM dated 18.09.2024, though the judgment provided therein, i.e., the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), can be considered/applied by the concerned authorities. It is again made clear that this order cannot be used as a precedent for cases that are filed on 04.04.2025 and thereafter. It shall only apply to cases that are pending before this Court as on 03.04.2025. 11. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.” Page No.# 5/5 In view of above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondents, particularly, the State Level Committee shall consider the case of the petitioner, in terms of the recommendation made by the DLC, Hailakandi, dated 19.09.2023, in the next sitting of the Committee. Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above direction. JUDGE Comparing Assistant