Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010173922025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4726/2025 ABHISHEK PANDEY S/O- LATE RAMAKANTA PANDEY, R/O- VILL.- AMBIKAGIRI RAY CHOUDHURY ROAD, P.O. HIJUGURI, P.S. AND DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM, KAHILIPARA ROAD GUWAHATI-19. 4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM, PIN- 786601. 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER TINSUKIA P.O. AND DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM, PIN- 786601 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MR A K DAS,MS J AKTAR Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, ELEM. EDU Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 20.08 .2025 Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Bora, learned standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 and Mr. B. Deuri, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 4. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly the respondent Nos.2 and 3, to consider the claim of the petitioner and to place the matter before the State Level Committee (SLC) for consideration of his appointment to any post, suitable to him. 3. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, Late Ramakanta Pandey, died in harness on 15.03.2015, while he was serving as Head Teacher of Panitola Hindi M.P. School in Tinsukia district. Being the only eligible son of the deceased, he submitted an application on 09.06.2015, before the respondent No.5, for being appointed on compassionate ground. Thereafter, on 26.07.2017, the meeting of District Level Committee (DLC) was held, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of lack of qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred one writ petition, being WP(C) No.6809/2023, which was disposed of on 24.11.2023, by directing the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner by the DLC, to the post as per his qualification. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was recommended by the DLC in its meeting dated 31.08.2024, but the SLC did not hold the meeting. 3.1 Mr. Khan further submits that in the meantime, the respondent authorities had Page No.# 3/5 issued Office Memorandum, dated 18.09.2024, whereby the Government had taken a decision that no cases for compassionate appointment shall be entertained before the SLC/DLC, for recommendation of candidates. Further, Mr. Khan submits that thereafter, a series of cases were filed before this Court, the lead case, being WP(C) No.342/2025 and all those writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 03.04.2025, by directing the authorities to consider their claim without taking into account the O.M. dated 18.09.2024, and the present writ petition may also be disposed of by issuing similar direction to the respondent authorities. 4. Mr. Bora and Mr. Deuri, learned counsel for the respondent authorities submit that they have no objection in the event of disposing of this petition by issuing direction to the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioner before the SLC, since the case of the petitioner has already been recommended by the DLC, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 24.11.2023, passed in WP(C) No.6809/2023. 5. Having heard the submission 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 of this Court, dated 24.11.2023, passed in WP(C) No.6809/2023, and also gone through the order, dated 03.04.2025 passed in WP(C) No.342/2025. 6. The basic facts here in this petition are not in dispute. Late father of the petitioner, namely, Ramakanta Pandey was the Head Teacher of Panitola Hindi M.P. School at Tinsukia, who died in harness on 15.03.2015. After the death of his father, the petitioner had applied for being appointed on compassionate ground and in view of rejection of his petition, on account of lack of vacancy, the petitioner had preferred one writ petition, being WP(C) No.6809/2023, wherein a direction was issued, vide order dated 24.11.2023, to consider the claim of the petitioner by the DLC as per available vacancies in other department and accordingly, the DLC has recommended the case of the petitioner in its meeting held on 31.08.2024, but the SLC has not held any meeting, for which the matter of the petitioner could not be placed before the SLC. In the meantime, Government had issued the O.M. dated 18.09.2024, whereby a decision has been taken not to place any Page No.# 4/5 matter of compassionate appointment before the SLC/DLC. 7. But, it appears that before the O.M. dated 18.09.2024, being issued by the Government, there was a direction of this Court to place the matter of the petitioner before the DLC with further direction to consider his case by the DLC, as per available vacancies in other department. 8. It is also to be noted here that in WP(C) No.342/2025, vide order dated 03.04.2025, this Court has disposed of a batch of writ petitions with the following directions:- “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 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 Page No.# 5/5 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.” 9. Though the present writ petition is filed after 03.04.2025, yet, the direction issued in the order dated 03.04.2025 would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner in as much as there is already an order of this Court dated 24.11.2023 and clarified on 06.12.2023, in WP(C) No.6807/2023 to place the matter before the DLC, pursuant to which the DLC has approved the case of the petitioner and as a logical corollary, the case of the petitioner, now, has to be placed before the SLC. 10. Thus, taking note of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and also the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioner before the next available SLC and in the event, the petitioner is found eligible for being appointed on compassionate ground, then the petitioner shall be informed about the same and necessary follow up action shall be taken thereafter. 11. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE