Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010268772025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7034/2025 BISHAL NATH S/O. BIBHASH NATH AND LATE LALITA DEVI, RESIDENT OF VILL. PALADAHAR, P.O. BAZARGHAT, DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY-06.. 2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 ASSAM 3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 5:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SRIBHUMI P.O. P.S. AND DIST. SRIBHUMI PIN- 788722. Page No.# 2/7 6:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS SDC SRIBHUMI P.O. AND DIST. SRIBHUMI PIN- 788722 ASSAM 7:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER SRIBHUMI P.O. AND DIST. SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN- 788722 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MR A K DAS,MS J AKTAR Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, SEC. EDU.,SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 10.12.2025 Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. U. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department, being respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 & 7; and Mr. G. Pegu, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 & 5. 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 & 3, to consider his claim and to place the same before the State Level Committee (SLC hereinafter) for consideration of his appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Upper Primary School, as recommended by the District Level Committee (DLC hereinafter). 3. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the petitioner, Late Lalita Devi, died in harness on 23.11.2016, while she was Page No.# 3/7 serving as Alternative Language Teacher of Chargola Public H.S. School, Bazarghat, Sribhumi. Being the only eligible son of the deceased, he submitted an application on 18.02.2017, before the respondent, for being appointed on compassionate ground, but his case was not placed before the DLC. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred one writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 374/2023, which was disposed of on 27.01.2023, by this Court by directing the respondent No. 6 to place his case in the next DLC meeting. Thereafter, on 26.06.2023, the case of the petitioner was placed before the DLC and the DLC had recommended his name for being appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Upper Primary School and accordingly, the same was forwarded to the respondent No. 1, for placing it before the SLC. But, his case had not been placed before the SLC in view of the 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. 3.1. Further, Mr. Khan submits that thereafter, a series of cases were filed before this Court, the lead case, being W.P.(C) No. 342/2025 and all those writ petitions were disposed of, vide order dated 03.04.2025, there by directing the respondent authorities to consider their claim without taking into account the O.M. dated 18.09.2024. 3.2. Mr. Khan also submits that the present writ petition may also be disposed of by issuing similar direction to the respondent authorities. 4. Per-contra, Mr. Sarma and Mr. Pegu, 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 27.01.2023, Page No.# 4/7 passed in W.P.(C) No. 374/2023. 5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the order of this Court, dated 27.01.2023, passed in W.P.(C) No. 374/2023 and also gone through the order, dated 03.04.2025, passed in W.P.(C) No. 342/2025. 6. The basic facts here in this petition are not in dispute. The mother of the petitioner, namely Late Lalita Devi was the Alternative Language Teacher of Chargola Public H.S. School, Bazarghat, Sribhumi, who died in harness on 23.11.2016. After the death of his mother, the petitioner had applied for being appointed on compassionate ground and in view of rejection of his petition, the petitioner had preferred one writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 374/2023, wherein a direction was issued, vide order dated 27.01.2023, to consider the claim of the petitioner by the DLC and accordingly, the DLC had recommended the case of the petitioner for being appointed as Assistant Teacher, but the SLC has not held any meeting, for which the matter of the petitioner could not be placed before the SLC. 6.1. It also appears that the meantime, Government had issued the O.M. dated 18.09.2024, whereby a decision has been taken not to place any 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. 8. It is also to be noted here that the OM dated 18.09.2024 was put challenge in W.P.(C) No. 342/2025 and the same was disposed of vide order Page No.# 5/7 dated 03.04.2025, and a batch of similar writ petitions were also disposed of 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 Page No.# 6/7 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 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 inasmuch as there is already an order of this Court dated 24.11.2023 and clarified on 06.12.2023, in W.P.(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 of the matter of the petitioner being placed before the SLC, the same shall be considered in Page No.# 7/7 accordance with law. 11. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant