Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010109912025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2822/2025 SAMCHANA BEGUM BARBHUIYA D/O. LATE ABDUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA, VILL. MOHANPUR PART-IV, P.O. MOHANPUR, P.S. ALGAPUR, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM 5 ORS TO BE REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL DEPT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC) HAILAKANDI REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN/DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 5:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. Page No.# 2/5 6:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPT. ASSAM KAHILIPARA GAUHATI-19 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA, MS A BEGUM,MS S R MAZARBHUIYA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE,SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 18.08.2025 Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Phukan, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 6; Ms. D.D. Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4; and Ms. R.M. Barooah, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 5. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to place the case of compassionate appointment of the petitioner before the District Level Committee/State Level Committee for consideration and for being appointed her on compassionate ground. 3. Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the father of the petitioner, namely, Abdur Rahman Barbhuiya, who was working as a Hindi Teacher in Kuntala Memorial Vidya Niketan M.E. School in the Hailakandi district, died in harness on 29.07.2004, and on his death, the mother of the present petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on 25.10.2004. But, her Page No.# 3/5 claim was not considered by the District Level Committee (DLC). And at that point of time, the petitioner was a minor. Mr. Barbhuiya also submits that having attained majority on 17.05.2014, and being eligible, she had applied for compassionate appointment and she had also approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 5523/2023. And this Court, vide order dated 06.10.2023, had directed the respondents to place the claim of the petitioner in the next available DLC. Mr. Barbhuiya further submits that while the petitioner was waiting for placing her case before the DLC, then the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel Department had issued a Notification, dated 18.09.2024, abolishing the scheme of compassionate appointment forever, in the State of Assam, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors., in Civil Appeal Nos. 8842-8855/2022. Mr. Barbhuiya also submits that the said notification, dated 18.09.2024, is being challenged on the ground that Hon’ble Supreme Court did not contemplate and/or directed to issue such type of Notification by abolishing the scheme of compassionate appointment and the same could not have been made applicable retrospectively by making an unreasonable classification among the beneficiaries, in view of the Notification, dated 14.09.2017, issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department as pursuant to the said Notification, dated 14.09.2017, some of the petitioners had already received the benefits of compassionate appointment. 3.1. By referring to an order, so passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dated 30.04.2025, in WP(C) No. 2070/2025, Mr. Barbhuiya submits that in the said petition, by taking note of an order of another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dated 03.04.2025, passed in WP(C) No. 342/2025 and other writ Page No.# 4/5 petitions, had disposed of the said petition by directing the SLC to reconsider the case of the petitioner therein, in terms of the recommendation made by the DLC, and that the present petitioner is also similarly situated, and as such, similar order may be passed by directing the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioner before the DLC. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 has opposed the petition as vide order dated 03.04.2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed that the said decision cannot be read as a precedent for cases filed on or after 04.04.2025. 5. However, Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner had already preferred a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 5523/2023, and vide order dated 06.10.2023, the respondents were directed to consider placing of the claim of the petitioner in the next available DLC and as such, the case of the petitioner is covered by the order dated 30.04.2025, in WP(C) No. 2070/2025, and therefore, it is contended to direct the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioner before the next available DLC. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the order dated 06.10.2023, in WP(C) No. 5523/2023; and also the order dated 03.04.2025, in WP(C) No. 342/2025 and other writ petitions; and order dated 30.04.2025, in WP(C) No. 2070/2025. 7. It appears that in WP(C) No. 5523/2023, already an order had been passed on 06.10.2023, to place the case of the petitioner before the next available DLC, and in that view of the matter, the case of the petitioner appears Page No.# 5/5 to be covered by the order dated 30.04.2025, in WP(C) No. 2070/2025, and the bar of this Court imposed, vide order dated 03.04.2025, in WP(C) No. 342/2025 that the said order shall be applied only in cases that are pending before the Court as on 03.04.2025, would not be applicable in the present case. 8. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the respondent authorities to place the matter of the petitioner before the next available DLC pursuant to the order dated 06.10.2023, in WP(C) No. 5523/2023 and also in view of the order dated 03.04.2025, in WP(C) No. 342/2025 and further in view of the order of this Court dated 30.04.2025, in WP(C) No. 2070/2025. In the event, the case of the petitioner being considered, the outcome of the same shall be communicated to her forthwith. 9. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. The parties have to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant