Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010245342025 2025:GAU-AS:15665 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6472/2025 APURBA KUMAR NATH S/O- LATE REBAT CHANDRA NATH, R/O- BAULABARI, P.O. GANDHIBORI, P.S. JAJORI, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782103. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (B) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY-781006. 3:THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (B) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE MORIGAON REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MORIGAON MORIGAON DISTRICT VIP ROAD MORIGAON PIN- 782105. 5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS MORIGAON DISTRICT CIRCLE VIP ROAD MORIGAON Page No.# 2/5 PIN- 782105 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H K BARUAH, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 19.11.2025 Heard Mr. H. K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. M. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, for the respondent Nos. 1 & 5 and Ms. S. Konwar, learned Government Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. [2.] Having regard to the projected case of the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. [3.] It is the case of the petitioner that his father was employed as an Assistant Teacher in Chabukdhara High School, situated at Itakali Chabukdhara village under Bhurbandha block of Morigaon district and he died in harness on 14.06.2016. He being the sole breadearner of the family and the petitioner being an unemployed, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 10.07.2016 before the Inspector of Schools, Morigaon district. While, the petitioner was waiting for consideration of his application and since no steps had been taken to his information, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon on 09.09.2022 stating that he has come to learn that his application has been rejected and therefore, prayed for reconsideration of his application as there was no earning Page No.# 3/5 member in his family. It so turned out that the application of the petitioner at that relevant time was not disposed of and his case came to be considered in the District Level Committee meeting held on 29.11.2024 in the conference hall of the Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Morigaon, wherein, the petitioner’s name appeared at Serial No. 6 of the Meeting Minutes with a remark that the application was rejected since the period of two (2) years had lapsed as per Principle No. 10 and also in view of the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024. It is also stated herein that the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 was issued by the Personnel (B) Department, Government of Assam notifying that the appointment on compassionate basis is being done away with in view of the introduction of the Compassionate Family Pension Scheme. The Office Memorandum was put to challenge by a number of persons, who were aggrieved and all the writ petitions were disposed of vide a Common Order dated 03.04.2025 and the lead case being WP(C) No. 342 of 2025. This Court without interfering with the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024, directed that all the pending cases for compassionate appointment be considered as per the relevant guidelines and policy of the State Government. The said Order was passed as per the consent of the rival parties concerned. Pursuant to the said Order, the Personnel (B) Department issued a Notice on 30.08.2025 inviting all concerned and interested to submit their particulars for compassionate appointment on or before 15.09.2025. It so appears that the petitioner, in the instant case, has not submitted his particulars in terms of the Notice dated 30.08.2025, claiming that he was unaware about the same. It may however be seen that the case of the petitioner was not pending consideration as on the date of the said Order i.e., dated 03.04.2025 and that his application was rejected by the DLC which met on 29.11.2024. It, therefore, only appears that Page No.# 4/5 the writ petition is hit by delay and laches. In other words, the application was filed by the petitioner on 10.07.2016 and although he submitted a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon on 09.09.2022, he did not approach this Court. Further, the DLC Minutes dated 29.11.2024 by which his application was rejected although notified on 22.01.2025, the instant writ petition also has only been filed on 03.11.2025. [4.] The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy Vs. State of Orissa & Ors., reported in AIR 2022 SC 2836, to contend that delay is attributed to the respondent authorities and for which reason, the petitioner should not be penalized. It is however seen that in that case, the applicant had submitted an application for compassionate appointment to the post of Junior Clerk and during pendency of his application the rules of compassionate appointment had been replaced by the new rules, wherein, family members of the deceased persons could only aspire for a ‘Group – D’ base level post. The respondent authorities did not consider the application of the petitioner therein and in the meantime, the rules came to be replaced by the new rules. It was under such circumstance that the Apex Court was of the view that the delay was on the part of the Official respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner/appellant while the old rules were in force. Accordingly, under the peculiar facts and circumstances, relief was granted to the appellant. [5.] However, in the instant case, the petitioner apart from filing his application on 10.07.2016 did not follow up the same and except for filing one representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon on 09.09.2022. Thereafter, when his application was considered and rejected by the DLC which Page No.# 5/5 met on 29.11.2024, the petitioner has come to file the instant writ petition only on 03.11.2025. [6.] Under the facts and circumstances, without expressing anything further on the merit or otherwise of the case, the writ petition is found to be not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches. [7.] Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant