Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010097622025 2026:GAU-AS:890 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2522/2025 JAHID ISLAM S/O- LATE NURUL ISLAM, VILL.- MURARA, WARD NO. 3, P.O. AND P.S. RANGIA, DIST. KAMRUP RURAL, ASSAM, PIN- 781354. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE CHAIRMAN OF STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND DISPUR GHY-781006. 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 4:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 5:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019. 6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE (DLC) KAMRUP Page No.# 2/6 AMINGAON FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND AMINGAON ASSAM PIN- 781031 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S B CHOUDHURY, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 27.01.2026 1. Heard Ms. S.B Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Deuri, learned Government advocate appearing for respondent No. 1, 2, 3 & 6 and Mr. B Talukdar, learned Standing counsel, Department of Elementary Education, Govt. of Assam appearing for respondent No. 4 & 5. 2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present Writ Petition, has presented a challenge to the Office memorandum dated 18.09.2024 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Personnel Department, wherein, it was stipulated that further consideration of applications for appointment on compassionate ground by the District Level Committee as well as the State Level Committee have been done away with. 3. The father of the petitioner Nurul Islam had died in harness on 07.06.2015 while working as the Head Master of Maranjana M.E.M under Rangia Education Block. The petitioner, thereafter, had submitted an application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds on 06.07.2015. The application submitted by the petitioner was placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee on 01.03.2017, however, on finding that the residuary Page No.# 3/6 service left of Late Nurul Islam being less than 3 years, the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected, in terms of the provisions of Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.01.2015. The petitioner, thereafter, assailed the said decision of the jurisdictional District Level Committee by way of instituting a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 3063 of 2023. The said Writ Petition was allowed vide an order dated 30.08.2023 wherein the rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 01.03.2017 was interfered with and the matter was remanded back to the jurisdictional District Level Committee for a fresh consideration. 4. At this stage, it is to be noticed that the provisions of Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.01.2015 was put to challenge before this Court in the proceedings of WP© No. 1646 of 2021 and other analogous matters. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.01.2023 had interfered with the provisions of Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.01.2015. 5. The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 1646/2021 and other analogous matters was carried up on appeal by the State Government, by way of instituting writ appeals, one of them being WA No. 287/2023. 6. The Division Bench of this Court upon considering the challenge so made proceeded vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2025, passed in WA No. 287/2023 and other analogous matters, to dismiss the said appeals as preferred by the State and thereby, upheld the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered vide judgment dated 30.01.2023 in WP(C) No. 1646/2021 and other analogous matters. 7. The conclusions drawn by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment Page No.# 4/6 and order dated 12.12.2025 passed in WA No. 287/2023 and other analogous appeals, being relevant, is extracted herein below:- "12. After having said that, we deem it appropriate to examine the correctness of the decision of the learned Single Judge in declaring Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 to be unconstitutional. 13. We find that the classification made on the basis of the remaining service period left for the deceased employee is neither intelligible nor has any nexus with the differentia sought to be achieved. 14. The respondents constitute a homogenous class of persons, whose bread-earners have died in harness. They come within exception laid down in D.S. Nakara (supra). It would be inappropriate for the State to contend that the purpose of the classification was to avoid fraud or misuse. Fraud or misuse may occur, irrespective of the length of service remaining. Limiting the benefits to dependants of the deceased employees, who have 3(three) years of service remaining, does not necessarily reduce the risk of fraudulent claims; a would-be fraudster could equally fabricate or collude in cases where a deceased employee had long remaining service. There is no logical causal connection between the duration of remaining service and the likelihood of such misuse. 15. We find force in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that the claim of the State that the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 is in accordance with the 10(ten) principles enunciated in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra) and the Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2013 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, is factually incorrect. The learned Single Judge did not find any rationale in the draft note preceding the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 was approved by the State Cabinet. 16. The absence of any contemporaneous reasoning diminishes any claim of the State that the choice of 3(three) years was the product of considered administrative evaluation for it not to be interfered with on the ground of such administrative policy being within the domain of executive and the usual restraint of the Courts in treading in such field. The executive must always conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Policy classifications must not be arbitrary, irrational or discriminatory without an intelligible basis. Compassionate appointment may not be an absolute vested right but it is a benefit conferred by the Page No.# 5/6 employer subject to policy conditions. The non-vested status of compassionate employment does not immunize arbitrary classifications from constitutional scrutiny. 17. On these grounds, we find the declaration of Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 to be constitutionally invalid by the learned Single Judge, to be wholly justified." 10. The Division Bench of this Court after having drawn the said conclusions with regard to the declaration of Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 to be unconstitutional by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had proceeded to draw the following further conclusions:- "20. Though we have taken the argument of the learned Advocate General with some seriousness that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Debabrata Tiwari (supra) prohibits compassionate appointment after long passage of time, but in the present set of cases, closing the chapter for the private respondents would not be appropriate. 21. We thus affirm the relegating order passed by the learned Single Judge. 22. While making such application before the concerned authorities, the private respondents, we may caution, must not entertain any false hopes and the concerned authorities also shall consider the "passage of time" aspect seriously while assessing the suitability of the private respondents for compassionate appointment, which would be the most important factor in recommending the cases of the private respondents for compassionate appointment, which ultimately may not withstand the judicial scrutiny if such recommendation is made after a long lapse of time since the death of the deceased employees." 8. The case of the petitioner, herein, is squarely covered by the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 1646/2021 as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 287/2023 and other analogous matters. 9. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 287/2023 and other analogous matters, the challenge presented in the present writ petition to the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 need not be gone into. Page No.# 6/6 10. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds strictly in accordance with the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2025 in WA No. 287/2023 and other analogous matters. 11. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant