Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010236322017 2026:GAU-AS:4353 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3059/2017 REMTHANGPUI DARNGAWN W/O- LATE ROCHUNGHNUNG DARNGAWN, R/O- MUOLHOI, HAFLONG, P.O AND P.S- HAFLONG, DIST- DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, PIN- 788819 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS. REPR. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY and VETERINARY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DIRECTOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY and VETERINARY ASSAM CHENIKUTHI GUWAHATI-3. 3:THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFICER and VETERINARY INFORMATION OFFICER ANIMAL HUSBANDRY and VETERINARY DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHENIKUTHI GUWAHATI -3. 4:N.C. HILLS AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY T DIST. DIMA HASAO PIN - 788819 ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 5:SHRI VANLALREMPUI HMAR S/OLT. HAUCHUNGNUNG HMAR R/O LOWER MUOLHOI HAFLONG DIST. DIMA HASAO PIN - 788819 ASSAM 6:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT. REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN DISPUR GUWAHATI- Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.M DEVI, MR.A DAS,MR.N C DAS,MS.B BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR A KHANIKAR,SC N.C HILLS.,MR. D BORA, G.A, ASSAM.,MR R DHAR (R-6),MR.D CHAKRABARTY(R-5),MS.J CHOUDHURY(R-5),MS.J TRIPATHI(R-5),MS.N SARMA(R-5),SC, NCHAC BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 24/03/2026 Heard Mr. A Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 6 and Ms. P Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. None has appeared for the respondent No. 5. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner has also prayed for restraining the respondent No. 5 from joining his services in terms of the appointment effected in his case on compassionate grounds. 3. The petitioner’s husband, Rochunghnung Darngawn, while working as an Office Peon Page No.# 3/6 in the District Office of the Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department in the District of Dima Hasao, Haflong, had died-in-harness on 22.12.2011. The petitioner in pursuance to the death of her husband, had submitted an application on 04.01.2012, before the competent authority claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. The said application of the petitioner came to be placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 08.05.2012. The said committee proceeded to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, it is seen that while making such recommendation, no post for effecting such appointment in respect of the petitioner came to be identified in the recommendation. The father of the respondent No. 5, had died-in-harness and he had submitted an application on 27.02.2013. The said application on being recommended by the jurisdictional District Level Committee, came to be placed along with the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner by the District Level Committee, before the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 30.12.2015. The State Level Committee, on consideration of the recommendation placed before it, including the recommendation made by the jurisdictional District Level Committee in favour of the petitioner as well as that made in respect of the respondent No. 5, proceeded to recommend the name of the respondent No. 5 for appointment against a Grade-IV identified vacant post. Insofar as, the claim of the petitioner was concerned, the State Level Committee, on consideration found that the said claim would not mandate to be recommended, inasmuch as, there was no post available within the 5% quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner came to be rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. A Das, learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner, having submitted her application prior to that of the respondent No. 5, the State Level Selection Committee, ought to have considered the case of the petitioner against the identified vacancy, before such consideration was extended in respect of the respondent No. 5. He submits that accordingly, this Court would be pleased Page No.# 4/6 to set aside the appointment effected in respect of the respondent No. 5 and direct the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner, herein. Alternatively, he has submitted that this Court would be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, by considering her economic status as on date. 5. Per contra, Mr. T C Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has submitted that the plea of the petitioner that she having submitted her application prior to that of the respondent No. 5 was to be considered ahead of the respondent No. 5 would not mandate acceptance, inasmuch as, such recommendations made by the District Level Committees are considered by the State Level Committee by taking into consideration the financial status of the applicants and their family. He submits that the financial status is so determined after ascertaining the financial capacity of the applicant and the number of family members. Mr. Chutia, submits that the State Level Committee, on an appreciation of the financial condition of the applicants before it, had shortlisted applicants found eligible for appointment against the available vacant posts and the respondent No. 5 was one of the shortlisted candidate and accordingly, a recommendation came to be made in his favour for appointment, which, ultimately, led to his appointment as a Peon in the District establishment of the Department in Dima Hasao District, Haflong. Accordingly, he submits that the present writ petition would be mandated to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The facts, as noticed hereinabove, being not in dispute, is not reiterated, herein. 8. The case of the petitioner admittedly was considered before the case of the respondent No. 5 by the jurisdictional District Level Committee. The petitioner is also found to have submitted her application, claiming appointment on compassionate grounds, prior to the one submitted by the respondent No. 5. 9. As noticed hereinabove, the District Level Committee, while recommending the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds had not made such recommendation against an identified vacant post within the 5% quota reserved for effecting Page No.# 5/6 appointment on compassionate grounds. As per the decision of this Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das Vs. State of Assam reported in 2006(4) GLT 674 followed by the decision of this Court in the case of Faziron Nessa and Ors. Vs. State of Assam reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340 and other cases, the recommendation of the District Level Committee is to be so made against an identified vacant post. 10. Be that as it may, it is seen that the cases of both the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 5 was placed before the same State Level Committee in the same meeting of the committee held on 30.12.2015. The State Level Committee, upon evaluating the financial condition of the applicants before it, proceeded to shortlist the applicants, who were found to be more needy than the others for an appointment on compassionate grounds. 11. The name of the respondent No. 5 is found within the list of candidates, so shortlisted, by the State Level Committee and accordingly, the State Level Committee proceeded to make a recommendation in his favour against an identified vacant post of Grade-IV of the year 2014. In so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned given the vacancies available within the 5% quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds, no recommendation was found permissible to be made in her favour. 12. This Court having noticed that the shortlisting of the candidates was made by the State Level Committee basing on the financial parameters as set out in the matter, the earlier recommendation made in favour of the petitioner by the District Level Committee and/or the earlier submission of the application by her claiming appointment on compassionate grounds in comparison to that of the respondent No. 5, would not in any manner give an added advantage to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the cases of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 was considered by the State Level Committee in the same very meeting and the segregation was so made on an appreciation of the financial parameters applied. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the recommendation made in favour of the respondent No. 5 would not mandate an interference. 13. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court would examine as to whether it would now be permissible to issue a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of Page No.# 6/6 the petitioner afresh for appointment on compassionate grounds. 14. The husband of the petitioner had died-in-harness on 22.12.2011. More than 14 years have lapsed since the date of death of the husband of the petitioner. It is a settled position of law that an appointment on compassionate grounds is to be effected proximate to the time of death of the Government servant, inasmuch as, the said appointment is so made to mitigate the difficulties faced by the family on account of the death of the bread earner of the family. 15. In the present case, as on today, the immediacy required for effecting appointment on compassionate grounds, insofar as, it concerns the petitioner, herein, is found to have been lost. The petitioner’s case as on today is a stale one and this Court refrains from issuing any direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. [Refer decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors., reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219]. 16. In view of the above, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant