Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010024052021 2026:GAU-AS:5503 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/881/2021 KAMAL BORAH S/O- LT. BOLURAM BORAH, R/O- VILL- HATICHUNGI KAMAR GAON, (CHAMUACHUK), P.O. KARANGA, P.S. MARIANI, DIST.- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785008 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-06 2:THE JOINT SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT. ASSAM P.O. HENGRABARI GHY-36 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING JORHAT DIVISION P.O. AND DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785001 5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER JORHAT Page No.# 2/4 P.O. AND DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 78500 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P SARMAH, MR. S UPADHAY Advocate for the Respondent : SR. GA, ASSAM, SC, P H E BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 22.04.2026 Heard Mr. S. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PHE appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner’s father, while serving as a Driver under the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Jorhat Division (respondent No. 4), died in harness on 03.08.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 28.04.2010. His case was considered and recommended by the District Level Committee (DLC) in its meeting held on 11.09.2013 for appointment to the post of Driver against the vacancy for the year 2009–2010. However, the State Level Committee (SLC), in its meeting held on 21.11.2015, rejected the petitioner’s case. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition against the order dated 21.11.2015 being WP(C)2222/2016. The said writ petition was disposed of on 11.04.2018 and remanded back the matter to the SLC with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner against the vacancy of the year 2009- 10 as recommended by the DLC in the next immediate sitting and thereafter passed appropriate order in accordance with law. As the case was not considered as directed, the petitioner filed contempt case. However, in the meantime, the SLC considered the case of the petitioner in its meeting held on 14.05.2020, wherein, it was held that since the cadre strength is six, there is no scope of reserving one post for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the SLC concluded that as the cadre strength of the division was six, no post was available for compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved, the petitioner Page No.# 3/4 is before this seeking direction for re-consideration by the SLC. 4. This Court vide order dated 13.06.2025 observed that in respect of the Office of the Executive Engineer, PHE, Jorhat Division, the vacancy position for the year 2009-2010 reflected one post of Driver in Grade-3 and Grade-4 respectively was available for compassionate appointment as reflected in the minutes of the DLC meeting dated 25.11.2013 and also found that the total cadre strength was also not discussed in those minutes. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel, PHE was directed to obtain clarification in this regard. 5. Pursuant thereto, the learned Standing Counsel, PHE placed before the Court the communication dated 11.07.2025 from the PHE Department, which shows the vacancy position in so far as the compassionate appointment of Grade-III and Grade-IV for the year 2009-10 is concerned. 6. From the above communication dated 11.07.2025, it is revealed that there was only one post, which was available under Grade-III and Grade-IV each for compassionate appointment for the year 2009-2010. However, the SLC vide order dated 14.05.2020 has rejected the case of the petitioner on the following ground: - “It was unanimous view of the Committee that since the total cadre strength for his position, in the division was only 6 numbers, giving any post at this stage to the candidate would jeopardize the purpose of recruitment as the cadre strength of the division was so small and unanimously decided to reject his application for compassionate appointment in light of paragraph 14(a) and 14(a)(ii) of the above mentioned Office Memorandum”. 7. This Court, vide order dated 16.07.2025, further observed that it was not reflected whether the case of the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that a suitable vacancy was not available in view of the cadre strength. Nevertheless, the Court granted an opportunity to the learned Standing Counsel to place before the Court the cadre strength of the concerned division/department for the year 2009–2010 for the purpose of determining the available vacancies for compassionate appointment. However, the learned counsel submits that the communication dated 11.07.2025 pertains to the cadre strength of the Division/Department for the year 2009–2010. 8. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in view of the aforesaid submissions, this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the SLC to reconsider the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment, either in Grade-III or Grade-IV, against the Page No.# 4/4 vacancy position in the concerned Division/Department for the year 2009–2010. 9. The learned counsel for respondent No. 5, while conceding to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the SLC may be directed to examine the vacancy position with regard to compassionate appointments in Grade-III and Grade-IV for the year 2009–2010 in the concerned department, and, if any vacancy existed, the case of the petitioner may be considered as per the entitlement and in accordance with the law. 10. In view of the above, this matter is remanded to the SLC with a direction to re-examine and reconsider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and, if vacancies existed in the Division/Department for the year 2009–2010, as reflected in the communication dated 11.07.2025, to consider recommending his case for compassionate appointment. 11. The above exercise shall be carried out at the next available meeting of the SLC, in accordance with law. 12. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant