Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010029542020 2025:GAU-AS:5988 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1142/2020 DHARANI SAIKIA S/O- LT. PURNA KANTA SAIKIA, R/O- VILL. DIMOW, SHANTIPUR GAON, P.O. DIMOW, P.S SILAPATHAR, DIST.- DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN- 787059. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. THROUGH- THE COMM. AND SPL. SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, P.W.D., ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY.- 781006. 2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY.- 781006. 3:THE UNDER SECY. TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM PWRD EXTT-B BRANCH DISPUR GHY.- 781006. 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D. (ROADS) ASSAM CHANDMARI GHY.- 781003. 5:THE DIST. LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT DHEMAJI REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE DY. COMMISSIONER DHEMAJI Page No.# 2/8 DIST- DHEMAJI ASSAM. 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DHEMAJI RURAL ROADS DIVISION SILAPATHAR DIST.- DHEMAJI ASSAM. 7:THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DHEMAJI RURAL ROAD DIVISION SILAPATHAR DIST- DHEMAJI ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MR. N K KALITA,MS. J GHOSH,MS A BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 13.05.2025 Heard Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. H. Baruah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P. Nayak, learned standing counsel, PWD for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 & 7; and Mr. J.K. Goswami, 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, namely, Sri Dharani Saikia, has prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to set aside and quash the Minutes of the State Level Committee (SLC hereinafter) dated 23.12.2019 (Annexure No. 14) and also for directing the respondent authorities to consider his appointment in any existing Grade III or Grade IV vacant post, under the respondent No. 5 on compassionate ground as duly been recommended by the District Level Page No.# 3/8 Committee in its Minutes dated 18.09.2014 (Annexure No. 4). 3. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was working in a Grade IV post, as Chowkidar, under the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Dhemaji Rural Roads Division, Silapathar (respondent No. 6) and he died in harness on 27.07.2013, leaving behind the petitioner along with two other sons and their mother, without any source of income. Thereafter, he had applied for being appointed on compassionate ground on 20.08.2013, and the same was forwarded by the concerned authority to the District Level Committee (DLC hereinafter), Dhemaji along with vacancy statement and economic condition of his family. Thereafter, the DLC, vide minutes dated 18.09.2014, had recommended the name of the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground in Grade III post, considering the economic condition of his family, under the establishment of the respondent No. 5. Thereafter, the aforesaid minutes of the DLC was forwarded to the respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 4 for considering the name of the petitioner for being appointed. But, the same was not placed before the SLC. 3.1. Mr. Kalita further submits that though there was a meeting of the SLC, dated 31.10.2015, but the case of the petitioner was not placed in the said meeting, in spite of due recommendation of his name for being appointed on compassionate ground by the DLC in available vacancies under 5% quota and poor economic condition of his family. 3.2. Mr. Kalita further submits that, thereafter, the petitioner had approached this Court, by filing one writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 5026/2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.08.2018, with a direction to the respondent authorities to place the petitioner's application for being appointed Page No.# 4/8 on compassionate ground and also place the minutes of the DLC meeting dated 08.09.2014, before the next SLC meeting, for its consideration. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the SLC in its meeting dated 19.06.2018. But, the same was rejected on the ground that the vacancies under 5% quota has already been filled up and he is under qualified, though according to Mr. Kalita he is Higher Secondary passed. Thereafter, he again approached this Court by filing another Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) No. 556/2019 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 27.05.2019, with a direction to the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioner before the SLC for reconsideration of his compassionate appointment by examining the availability of the vacancy in the other Department/Office as provided under Clause 15 of the OM dated 01.06.2015, which provides that if sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to accommodate for compassionate appointment, it is open to the Administrative Department/Office to take up the matter with other Department/Office of the Government to provide early appointment on compassionate ground to those in the waiting list. Thereafter, he had placed the certified copy of the order, dated 27.05.2019, before the respondent authorities and thereafter, the respondent No. 6 had submitted filled up proforma for his appointment on compassionate ground vide letter dated 20.11.2019. 3.3. Mr. Kalita further submits that instead of complying with the order of this Court and considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as per Clause 15 of OM dated 01.06.2015, as directed by this Court, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the SLC, vide impugned minutes dated 23.12.2019, on two grounds that (i) he cannot be accommodated within 5% of the cadre strength in this division and (ii) he could not be recommended on the basis of financial need, as Grade IV candidates are Page No.# 5/8 selected on the basis of financial needs prioritizing economically weaker section first. 3.4. Under such circumstances, Mr. Kalita has contended to set aside the impugned minutes dated 23.12.2019, and relegate the matter to the SLC for fresh consideration of the case of the petitioner as per Clause 15 of the OM dated 01.06.2015. 3.5. Mr. Kalita has referred to a decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1756/2020 (Nabajyoti Barman vs. The State of Assam and 5 others), in support of his submission. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 & 5, referring to the paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition, submits that the respondent authorities have made a clear stand that the SLC has considered the case of the petitioner in view of the direction issued by this Court in the light of order dated 01.03.2019, passed in W.P.(C) No. 1111/2019, and that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the grounds that (i) he cannot be accommodated within 5% of the cadre strength in the Division he applied and (ii) he cannot be recommended to any office of PWRD in Assam, on the basis of financial needs prioritizing economically weaker section first. 4.1. Mr. Goswami referring to the table of the paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition submits that the monthly income of the petitioner was Rs. 19,146/- and the same was calculated on the basis of Annexure – A and that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered as his father suffered Page No.# 6/8 demise in the year 2013 and since then they are surviving till today and as such, there is no ground for considering the case of the petitioner. Therefore, Mr. Goswami has contended to dismiss the petition. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the petitioners, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the decisions referred by learned counsel for both the parties. 6. From a perusal of the impugned minutes of the meeting of the SLC, dated 23.12.2019, indicates that the case of the petitioner was considered for being appointed in Grade IV post, but his application was rejected on two grounds, i.e. (i) he cannot be accommodated within 5% of the cadre strength in the Division he applied and (ii) he cannot be recommended to any office of PWRD in Assam, on the basis of financial needs prioritizing economically weaker section first. 7. 7. It is to be noted here that the Clause 15 of the OM dated 01.06.2015, reads as under:- “15. If sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to accommodate, the persons in the waiting list for compassionate appointment, it is open to the administrative Department/ Office to take up the matter with other Departments/Offices of the Government to provide at an early appointment on compassionate grounds to those in the waiting list.” 8. From a bare perusal of the aforementioned clause indicates that if 5% of the vacancies are not available in a particular department, the administration may consider his appointment in other department of the Page No.# 7/8 Government to provide an early appointment on compassionate ground and perusal of the order dated 27.05.2019, passed in W.P.(C) No. 556/2019 indicates that referring to the Clause 15 of the OM dated 01.06.2015, this Court had directed the respondent authorities to place the matter before the concerned SLC for consideration of the application of the petitioner for appointment under the scheme by examining the availability of the vacancies in any other department as provided under Clause 15 of the OM dated 01.06.2015. 9. But, the aforementioned exercise, directed to be undertaken by the SLC, has not been undertaken by the SLC and on the same ground, it has rejected the application of the petitioner adding another ground that he could not be recommended on the basis of financial need as Grade-IV candidates are selected on the basis of financial need prioritizing economically weaker section first. And in the affidavit a stand has been taken that the monthly income of the petitioner is Rs.19,146/-. 10. But, Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the Annexures, especially Annexure No. 15, in his reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent authorities, submits that the pension received by the mother of the petitioner is only Rs. 10,226/- as on 27.10.2021. As such, the calculation, being shown in Annexure – A series, at page No. 92 of the petition and in paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition, cannot be reconciled. Mr. Kalita also pointed out that the petitioner is Higher Secondary passed and his case may be considered for being appointed in Grade – III post also. 11. I have considered the submission of learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities and also considered the stand taken in the affidavit-in- opposition filed by it and I find the grounds for rejection of the case of the petitioner is contrary to the direction issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Page No.# 8/8 Court in its order dated 27.05.2019, and as such the submission of the learned standing counsel and the stand in the affidavit failed to command acceptance of this Court. 12. Thus, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner as per direction of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, passed in W.P.(C) No. 556/2019, in its order dated 27.05.2019, and also in light of the Clause 15 of the OM dated 01.06.2015. 13. Accordingly, the impugned minutes of the meeting of the SLC dated 23.12.2019, stands set aside and quashed. Now, the case of the petitioner shall be placed before the SLC within a period of 2(two) months from today, for a fresh reasoned decision in terms of the direction of this Court in WP(C) No.556/2019, in the order dated 27.05.2019. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authority within a week from today. 14. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant