Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010163172025 2025:GAU-AS:17449 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4246/2025 DIPANJALI BORDOLOI D/O- DEBEN CH. BORDOLOI, R/O- SILBHETA, P.O. DHARAMTUL, P.S. DHARAMTUL, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782412 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MORIGAON CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE MORIGAON P.O. AND P.S. MORIGAON ASSAM 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER MORIGAON P.O. Page No.# 2/4 P.S. AND DIST. MORIGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A SARMA, MR R S CHAUHAN,MS. D CHAUHAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 17.12.2025 Heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that in terms of the last Court’s Order dated 01.08.2025, the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit incorporating the Communication dated 27.02.2007 by which the case of the petitioner was asked to be verified for placing his case before the DLC for consideration for compassionate appointment. [2.] The case of the petitioner is that his father who was an employee of Nelee Government M.V. School, died-in-harness on 20.11.1999. Since the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification at the relevant time he could only apply for compassionate appointment on 12.02.2004. The District Level Committee which held its meeting on 14.06.2004, recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Teacher in L.P. School. However, the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Elementary Education Department sent back the matter to the Director of Elementary Education on 27.02.2007 to verify the proposal in the light of WT Message sent on 26.12.2006 and then to place the matter before the DLC for consideration. Since the matter was not placed before the DLC, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C)/4747/2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 10.04.2012 with a direction to the Page No.# 3/4 respondents to place the case of the petitioner before the next DLC for consideration in terms of the Scheme formulated by the State Government. The case of the petitioner was not placed before the DLC for a long time and ultimately when it was placed before the DLC which held its meeting on 29.11.2024, his case was rejected due to shortage of vacancy as per Principle No.14(a) of the O.M Dated 01.06.2015. [3.] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under such circumstance, the DLC should have adopted the conditions provided under Clause-15 of the O.M dated 01.06.2015 which is to the effect that if sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular Office to accommodate the persons in the waiting list for compassionate appointment, it would be open to the Administrative Department/Office to take up the matter with other Departments/Offices to provide early appointment on compassionate grounds. [4.] At this stage, Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department submits that the application filed by the petitioner is only belated and it is in clear violation of Clause-3 of the O.M dated 01.06.2015 since it was not filed within one year from the date of death of the employee concerned. It may however be seen that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C)/4747/2010 and the writ petition was not dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the application for compassionate appointment and in fact, a direction was given for considering this case in spite of lapse of two years from the date of filing the application. The said order has not been challenged and it stands. Under such circumstance, this Court is not inclined to dismiss this writ petition on the ground of delay in filing of the application at this stage particularly when the earlier writ petition had been entertained by this Court. Page No.# 4/4 [5.] In that view of the matter, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioner once more before the DLC in its next sitting for consideration and the DLC shall take into account the Clause-15 of the O.M dated 01.06.2015 while considering the case of the petitioner. [6.] With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant