Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010165982019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5048/2019 KAMAL BARMAN S/O LT. BRAJAMOHAN BARMAN, R/O.- VILL. DEHAR KALAKUCHI, P.O. DEHAR KALAKUCHI, P.S. MUKALMUA, DIST.- NALBARI (ASSAM), PIN- 781310. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 12 ORS. REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM AND THE CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 (ASSAM). 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION DEPTT. (SECONDARY) DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 (ASSAM). 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GHY.- 781006 (ASSAM). 4:DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 24.07.2019 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E ) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GHY. DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781029. Page No.# 2/10 5:THE DEUPTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE NALBARI DIST.- NALBARI (ASSAM) PIN- 781335. 6:THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NALBARI DIST.- NALBARI (ASSAM) PIN- 781335. 7:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781019. 8:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS N.D.C. NALBARI DIST.- NALBARI (ASSAM) PIN- 781335. 9:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS AMINGAON VILL. AND P.O. AMINGAON P.S. AMINGAON DIST.- KAMRUP(R) (ASSAM) PIN- 781031. 10:THE TREASURY OFFICER NALBARI DIST.- NALBARI (ASSAM) PIN- 781335. 11:THE TREASURY OFFICER AMINGAON DIST.- KAMRUP(R) (ASSAM) PIN- 781031. 12:DAKSHIN PAKOWA BAHJANI MILAN HIGH SCHOOL REP. BY ITS HEAD MASTER/ SECRETARY SMC VILL. AND P.O. DEHAR KALAKUCHI DIST.- NALBARI (ASSAM) Page No.# 3/10 PIN- 781310. 13:ANUPAM KALITA LDA S/O. LT. PRASANNA KALITA (ASST. I.S. NALBARI. SINCE DECEASED) O/O. THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS AMINGAON KAMRUP(R) ASSAM VILL. AND P.O. AMINGAON DIST.- KAMRUP(R) (ASSAM) PIN- 781031 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D C K HAZARIKA, MS J KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. SANJIB HAZARIKA ( R/N 13),MR P BHATTACHARJYA (r-12),SC, SEC. EDU.,SC, FINANCE,SC, AG,MR. S HAZARIKA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 24.01.2025 1. Heard Ms. J. Bezbaruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Mr. B. Deori, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 5 & 6; Mr. U. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2, 7, 8 & 9 and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3, 10 & 11. Ms. K. Bharali, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.13. 2. The petitioner’s case is in brief is that the petitioner’s father died-in- harness on 02.01.2007 and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 31.08.2007. As the petitioner’s case was not being considered Page No.# 4/10 by the authorities, the petitioner filed WP(C) 3866/2007, praying that his application for compassionate appointment should be considered by the authorities. WP(C) 3866/2007 was disposed of, vide order dated 01.08.2007, with a direction that the petitioner’s case should be placed before the District Level Committee (DLC) for consideration. 3. The petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is that the DLC had considered the case of the petitioner along with the case of the respondent no.13 amongst others, on 24.01.2011, where only the respondent no.13 was recommended for compassionate appointment by the DLC for consideration of the State Level Committee (SLC). 4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the financial status of the family of the petitioner, when compared with the family of the respondent no.13, shows that the financial status of the respondent no.13 was better placed than the petitioner. As such, the very basis for the DLC recommending the name of the respondent no.13 for compassionate appointment over the case of the petitioner being in violation of the parameters laid down by the State respondents, the recommendation of the respondent no.13 for compassionate appointment by the DLC should be set aside and the petitioner should be recommended for compassionate appointment. 5. Mr. B. Deori, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 5 & 6 submits that the case of the petitioner was considered by the DLC on 24.01.2011 and rejected. However, the petitioner’s case was again considered by the DLC on Page No.# 5/10 28.04.2017 and rejected, on the ground that the application had been submitted by the petitioner 10 years after the death of his father. Hence the proposal had lost it’s force, in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das and Others vs. State of Assam and Others reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674. He also submits that the respondent no.13 was recommended for compassionate appointment, keeping in view the poorer financial status of the respondent no.13 vis-à-vis the financial status of the petitioner. As the financial status of the applicants is the basis for making compassionate appointments to the limited vacant posts reserved for compassionate appointments, the respondent no.13’s financial status was found to be in worse shape than the financial status of the petitioner. Mr. Deori also submits that the writ petition is hit by delay and laches as the petitioner has challenged the rejection of his compassionate appointment by the DLC in 2011, by way of this writ petition which has been filed only in the year 2019. He accordingly submits that the writ petition should be dismissed. 6. The above being said, Mr. Deori has surprisingly submitted the minutes of the DLC dated 28.04.2017 today, which shows that the petitioner’s case was considered by the DLC and rejected, on the ground that the application submitted by the petitioner had lost it’s force, as it was submitted 10 years after the death of his father. 7. Ms. K. Bharali, learned counsel for the respondent no.13 submits that the writ petition is hit by delay and laches. She also submits that the petitioner has a better financial position than the family of the respondent no.13, who are 5 in numbers. She also submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court Page No.# 6/10 in the case of The State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Others, reported in 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 191, the rationale behind a policy of compassionate appointment, is to provide immediate succour to the dependents of a Government employee dying in harness. Further, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay either on the part of the applicant claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. The financial circumstances of the family of the deceased may have changed for the better, since the time of the death of the Government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it was a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession, which is contrary to the Constitution. She submits that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of a Government servant. 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 9. I have perused the financial condition of the petitioner and the respondent no.13, which is provided in paragraph-6 of the writ petition. It is seen therein that the family of the respondent no.13 consists of 5 members, while there is nothing to show that there are others, other than the petitioner, who were dependent on the petitioner’s father’s earnings. Without making any comment Page No.# 7/10 as to whose financial condition is worse, as the same is subjective, keeping in view the various considerations that have to be taken into account, this Court is of the view that it would not be proper for this Court to go into the issue of whether the petitioner was less financially sound than the family of the respondent no.13. The same is a question of fact, which is best left to be decided by the authorities, unless the discrepancies and findings of the authorities are shown to be totally unreasonable or palpably arbitrary. Be that as it may, it is no doubt clear that the family of the respondent no.13 also needs succour from the loss of the sole bread-earner, besides the petitioner. 10. On perusing the DLC meeting minutes dated 24.01.2011, it is seen that only the application of the respondent no.13 had been considered by the DLC for compassionate appointment. The application of the petitioner has not been considered, inasmuch as, the DLC meeting minutes dated 24.01.2011 records as follows : “20 (Twenty) proposals have been submitted for the post of L.D. Asstt.; the applicants are Sri Himangshu Kr. Baishya S/O Late Mahesh Baishya. Manju Devi Goswami W/O Late Priya Goswami, Kamal Barman S/O Late Braja Mohan Barman, Renuka Begum W/O Late Wahabuddin Ahmed, Pankaj Pathak, S/O Late Dambarudhar Pathak. Debajyoti Barman S/O Late Hemanta Barman, Hitesh Das S/O Late Bimal Das, Islamuddin Ahmed S/O Late Abdul Khayer, Saraju Medhi W/O Late Prafulla Medhi, Biswakrit Tamuli S/O Late Dinesh Ch. Tamuli, Dipika Devi W/O Late Sachi Nath Sarma, Gitanjali Bhattacharjya W/O Late Bidhu Bhusan Bhattacharjya, Sri Bhanumati Goswami W/O Late Phanindra Goswami, Hiramoni Lahkar D/O Late Mahidhar Lahkar Pranita Kalita D/O Late Bhabit Ch. Kalita. Anowar Hussain S/O Late Mantazuddin Ahmed. Anupam Kalita, S/O Late Prasanna Kalita, Tafianur Rahman S/O Late Tamizuddin Hazarika, Papari Nath D/O Late Mahodar Nath & Kishor Mazumdar S/O Late Birendara Mazumdar. As the vacancy position is 20 therefore the DLC decided to Page No.# 8/10 forward one verifying the qualification financial status. That applicant is Sri Anupam Kalita S/o Late Prasanna Kalita and other 19 proposals could not be considered by the DLC for placing in the SLC” 11. The father of the petitioner died in the year 2007, while the father of the respondent no.13 died in the year 2009. A number of years have passed since their deaths and as on date the respondent no.13 has been working on compassionate ground for more than 10 years. Keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), it can be said that the petitioner has been able to overcome the immediate loss of death of his father which occurred in the year 2007. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the challenge made by the petitioner to the selection of the respondent no.13 by the concerned DLC and which was approved by the State Level Committee (SLC) should not be disturbed at this stage. Further, as the DLC meeting minutes dated 24.01.2011 clearly states that the proposals of the 19 other candidates, which included the petitioner, could not be considered by the DLC for placing before the SLC except for the application of the respondent no.13, the same goes to show that the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment had not been considered by the DLC in it’s meeting held on 24.01.2011. As the respondent no.13 has been working for more than 10 years on compassionate ground, this Court is of the view that, the challenge made by the petitioner to the appointment of the respondent no.13 on compassionate ground should not be allowed to continue. The challenge to the appointment of the respondent no.13 is hereby dismissed. 12. A reading of the ground for rejection of the petitioner’s application for Page No.# 9/10 compassionate appointment in the DLC meeting minutes dated 28.04.2017 which has been produced for the first time by the State respondents today and which is not a part of an affidavit shows that the petitioner’s application had been rejected on the ground that the application had been submitted by the petitioner 10 years after the death of his father, i.e. approximately in the year 2017. However, the said ground for rejection of the petitioner’s application by the DLC meeting minutes dated 28.04.2017 is belied by the order dated 01.08.2007 passed by this Court in WP(C) 3866/2007, wherein this Court had directed the State respondents to consider the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment. Further, the petitioner’s father having died in the year 2007, the order dated 01.08.2007 passed in WP(C) 3866/2007 and the contents of the DLC meeting minutes dated 24.01.2011 implicitly shows that the contents of the DLC meeting minutes dated 28.04.2017 is false. The petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment had clearly been submitted in the year 2007 and the same is borne out by the order dated 01.08.2007 passed in WP(C) 3866/2007 and the DLC meeting minutes dated 24.01.2011. Thus, it is apparent that the DLC has not considered the petitioner’s case on merit even till today. 13. For the sake of repitition, the DLC meeting minutes dated 28.04.2017 has been made in total defiance of the order dated 01.08.2007 passed in WP(C) 3866/2007 and is belied by DLC meeting minutes dated 24.01.2011, wherein it is clearly seen that the case of the petitioner has not been considered. 14. The actions of the State respondents in the present case amounts to playing hide and seek with facts with this Court and the same requires to be Page No.# 10/10 taken seriously. However, without going further into the issue, the concerned DLC is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on merit, within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in terms of the order dated 01.08.2007 passed in WP(C) 3866/2007. The issue of whether a case of contempt of Court should be drawn up against the maker/s of the DLC meeting minutes dated 28.04.2017 will be decided later, depending upon the subsequent events that will/may unfold. 15. The letter dated 22.03.2023 issued by the Inspector of Schools, NDC, Nalbari and the DLC meeting minutes dated 28.04.2017 are made a part of the record and marked as Annexure-X collectively. In view of the above reasons, the DLC meeting minutes dated 28.04.2017 is set aside. 16. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant