Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010272492025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7081/2025 IMRANA BEGUM BARBHUIYA D/O- LT. TAHIR UDDIN BARBHUIYA, RESIDENT OF VILL- ALGAPUR PT- IIP.O- NORTH NAVAINPUR P. S- ALGAPUR, DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM PIN-788150 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER (DEEO) HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788151 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC) HAILAKANDI FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND HAILAKANDI ASSAM 78815 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HOSSAIN, Rajib Kumar Roy Digitally signed by Rajib Kumar Roy Date: 2025.12.16 15:38:59 +05'30' Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 12.12 .2025 Heard Mr. N. Hossain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also head Mr. G. Pegu, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. S. Chutia, learned standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.3—5. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Personnel (B) Department, Dispur, Guwahati, in respect of the petitioner, deciding not to place any proposal before SLCs/DLCs for recommendation of candidates for appointment on compassionate ground, though the case of the petitioner has already been initiated as per letter dated 21.09.2024, for consideration by the DLC, Hailakandi, in its next meeting. 3. Mr. Hossain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, namely, Late Tahir Uddin Barbhuiya was serving as an Assistant Teacher of Chandipur M.V. School under the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi, who died in harness on 01.10.2001 i.e. before 01.04.2017. The petitioner is the daughter of deceased Government employee and she was minor at the time of her father's death and as such, the application was submitted by her mother in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for appointment under compassionate ground on 05.06.2002, before the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi, as per prevailing norms in the State. But, the authority had not considered the application of the petitioner. Though one representation dated 22.12.2022, was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi Page No.# 3/4 for compassionate appointment, but the authority had refused to address the same. Thereafter, the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi, issued one letter dated 21.09.2024, requesting the petitioner to appear in the District Commissioner Office as reflected in the said letter on 23.09.2024 without fail along with all original documents/certificates etc. and any order of the Court, if any. The petitioner then participated in the said process. Thereafter, the District Level Committee (DLC), Hailakandi, in its meeting has not taken any decision on the proposal of the petitioner as per norms. But, before taking any decision by the DLC on the proposal of the petitioner, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel (B) Department, has issued the impugned office memorandum dated 18.09.2024, deciding that no cases for appointment on compassionate ground shall be entertained. Thereafter, some similarly situated persons had approached this Court, by filing WP(C) No.342/2024, challenging the said O.M. dated 18.09.2024. The said petition was disposed of, vide judgment and order dated 03.04.2025, with a direction to consider the case of the petitioners on merit and to complete the process within a period of six months. Subsequently, one Saiful Islam approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.5834/2025 for consideration of his case by the DLC. The said petition was allowed vide order dated 13.10.2025, directing the DLC to place the proposal of the petitioner after issuance of the O.M. dated 18.09.2024. Since in the present case, the petitioner's proposal has already been initiated by the DLC for consideration, just after issuance of O.M. dated 18.09.2024 and as such, the said O.M. may not be applicable in respect of the petitioner and as the case of the petitioner in WP(C) No.5834/2025 and the case of the present petitioner are similar in nature, similar relief may be granted to the present petitioner also by directing the DLC, Hailakandi to initiate a process for verification of records in respect of the case of the petitioner pursuant to the letter dated 21.09.2024 and therefore, Mr. Hossain contended to allow this petition by granting similar relief of the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.5834/2025. 4. Per contra, Mr. Pegu, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate submits that he has no objection in the event of disposing of the present petition by granting similar relief like the petitioner in WP(C) No.5834/2025. Page No.# 4/4 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 dated 13.10.2025, passed in WP(C) No.5834/2025. 6. Notably, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has disposed of the aforementioned writ petition by granting following reliefs:- “[3.] Therefore without expressing anything on merit and having regard to the fact that the petitioner had also submitted an application within time in terms of the notice dated 30.08.2025 and also taking into account paragraph Nos.3, 9 and 10 of the order dated 03.04.2025 passed in WP(C)/342/2025, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law by way of passing an appropriate and reasoned order within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 7. Accordingly, taking note of the aforementioned direction in paragraph No.3 of the order dated 13.10.2025 and also having gone through the order dated 03.04.2025, passed in WP(C) No.342/2025 and as agreed upon, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law by way of passing an appropriate and reasoned order within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a period of one week from today. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE