Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010220052025 2025:GAU-AS:13409 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5770/2025 DEBARATI DEB D/O LATE GANESH CHANDRA DEB, R/O KRISHNANAGAR (SHIB COLONY), P.O. RANGIRKHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 OTHERS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE STATE LEVEL SLECTION COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONE GROUND REPRESENTED BY THE ITS CHAIRMAN CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE CACHAR FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND P.O.- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CACHAR PIN-788001 4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 5:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS CACHAR Page No.# 2/4 SILCHAR P.O. SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001 6:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER CACHAR SILCHAR P.O. SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR PIN-78800 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HAQUE, MS. S K LASKAR,MR M HUSSAIN,MR. A K AZAD,MR. S R BARBHUIYA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 26-09-2025 Heard Mr. N Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that this is the 2nd time, the petitioner is before this Court seeking consideration for appointment on compassionate basis on account of death of his father having expired, while in service on 11.11.2016. The case of the petitioner was duly considered by the District Level Committee (DLC), Cachar on 02.02.2022 and upon such consideration, the petitioner’s case was recommended to be placed before the State Level Committee (SLC). The SLC which met on 26.08.2022, however, rejected the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed WP(C) 6768/2022 and this Court, vide order dated 23.11.2023 found the reason for rejecting the case of the petitioner by the SLC to be not acceptable and therefore, set aside the Page No.# 3/4 rejection with the further direction to the SLC to re-consider the case of the petitioner on merit and not on extraneous technical grounds. The petitioner then submitted a copy of the order before the Chief Secretary-cum- Chairman of the SLC on 30.11.2023, which was received by the office of the said authority on the same day. Despite the same, the case of the petitioner has not been considered and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court once again. [2.] Ms. DD Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate submits that the State Government, Personnel (B) Department in the meantime has come up with the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 18.09.2024, which provides that compassionate appointment shall henceforth be stopped, in view of the introduction of the Compassionate Family Pension Scheme. The said OM was put to challenge by a number of persons seeking compassionate appointment and all the writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 03.04.2025 with the lead case being WP(C) 342/2025 by directing the respondent authorities to consider all pending cases according to the policy and guidelines of the State Government for compassionate appointment. She submits that in terms of the said direction, a notice was issued by the State Government in the Personnel (B) Department on 30.08.2025 requiring all such similarly situated persons to submit their particulars and other details on or before 15.09.2025. Such being the position, the petitioner ought to have submitted her application as well along with all other relevant documents in support of her claim for compassionate appointment. The same having not been done, it would not be possible for the respondents to consider her case, at this stage. [3.] However, it may be seen that the petitioner had approached this Court Page No.# 4/4 through WP(C) 6768/2022 against the rejection of her case by the SLC and this Court, vide order dated 23.11.2023 had interfered with the rejection made by the SLC with a direction to re-consider the case of the petitioner. The said order admittedly stands as on today. Therefore, the case of the petitioner appears to be distinct from all other cases, which has been taken care of by this Court in WP(C) 342/2025, vide common order dated 03.04.2025. [4.] Under the facts and circumstance, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner has to be considered by the SLC in terms of the order dated 23.11.2023 passed in WP(C) 6768/2022. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to place the matter before the SLC, if not already placed in the meantime for consideration in terms of the order dated 23.11.2023 passed in WP(C) 6768/2022. [5.] With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant