Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010153812025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3945/2025 GAUTAM KUMAR GOGOI S/O- LATE MINA KANTA GOGOI, R/O- VILL.- PHUTUKABARI, P.O. DHUBABARY, P.S. AND DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN- 787057. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, ASSAM 2:THE CHIEF SECRETARY CUM CHAIRMAN TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 ASSAM 3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 ASSAM 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHEMAJI DIST DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057. 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER Page No.# 2/3 DHEMAJI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A GOHAIN, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Gohain, learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the father of the petitioner expired on 18.04.2005 while in service. The petitioner thereafter applied for compassionate appointment on 22.02.2006. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date the responding authorities have not considered the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a case of similar nature, this Court had directed the respondent authorities to examine the claim of the petitioner and to verify as to whether the application for compassionate appointment was filed within time. He therefore submits that a similar direction may be passed in the present case. To support this submission, the learning counsel refers to the order dated 26-6-2025 passed by this Court in WP(C)/3623/2025 (Namita Medhi vs. The State of Assam & 7 Ors.). Page No.# 3/3 3. Upon perusal of the materials available on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner has come before this Court after more than 20 years from the day of death of his father and it is only hit by delay and laches. Further, keeping in mind the question of immediacy, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment in view of long lapse of time. The case of Namita Medhi (supra) is clearly distinguishable in view of the fact that in that case the petitioner had again submitted her application while maintaining that she had filed her application within the time prescribed. It is for that reason that the Court had directed the verification of the same by the respondent authorities. Therefore, the case under the reference cannot come to the assistance of the petitioner in the instant case. Under the circumstance, the Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant