Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010196552024 2026:GAU-AS:7833 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4925/2024 SOFIQUL ISLAM S/O- LT. SOPIAL SHEIKH, VILL- PAIKANDARA PT. I (KESHARIDUBI), P.O.- LAKHIGANJ, P.S.- BILASIPARA, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN NO. 783348. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE CUM THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY-06. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM SCHOOL EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DISPUR GHY-6. 3:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TOT HE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (B) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 5:THE CHAIRMAN Page No.# 2/6 DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND CUM DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI DISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301. 6:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DHUBRI P.O. AND P.S. AND DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. PIN- 783301. 7:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER BILASIPARA P.O. AND P.S.- BILASIPARA DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M HUSSAIN, MR A.K. MOLLAH,MR. R I MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, ELEM. EDU Page No.# 3/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 04.06.2026 Heard Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 5; and Mr. A. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education representing the respondent Nos. 2, 4, 6 & 7. 2. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the Minutes dated 26.05.2016 issued by the Chairman of the District Level Committee, Dhubri, concerning the petitioner's appointment on compassionate grounds, whereby the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was rejected solely on the ground that the deceased employee had only two years and eight months of service remaining before attaining the age of superannuation and, therefore, did not satisfy the requirement contained in Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, which prescribed a minimum balance of three years of service for consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment. 3. The case of the petitioner is that his father, who was serving as a Grade-IV employee, at Lakhiganj M.E. Madrassa under the Bilasipara in the District of Dhubri, Assam, died in harness on 25.09.2014, leaving behind his widow, two sons and three daughters. After the death of the deceased, the family were in tremendous financial hardship. Having no other alternative, the petitioner, being son and a dependent family member of the deceased employee, submitted an application on 02.03.2015 before the respondent authority seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The said application came to be rejected solely on account of the condition contained in Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated Page No.# 4/6 01.06.2015. Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 being relevant is reproduced below: “(1) Only one dependent family member of a Government servant appointed on regular basis - excluding one working on daily wage or casual or apprentice or ad-hoc or contract or re-employment basis - who die in harness or become incapacitated due to accidents suffered while on duty and is eligible to opt for invalid pension under relevant provision of Service Rule/Pension Code and/or who is missing is eligible for making application for compassionate appointment provided in each case the Government servant has balance of minimum of 3 years of service.” 4. Mr. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, by judgment and order dated 30.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No.1646/2021 and analogous cases, declared Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, insofar as it prescribed the requirement of a minimum balance of three years of service of the deceased employee, to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the respondents were directed the authorities to reconsider the cases of applicants whose claims had been rejected solely on the basis of the said clause. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said judgment of the single bench was challenged by the State authorities in WA No.287/2023 and connected writ appeals. However, the Division Bench, by judgment and order dated 12.12.2025, affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeals. 6. The aforesaid decision of the learned Single Bench, as affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, has not been disputed by the learned Government Counsels. Page No.# 5/6 7. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments referred above, as well as the records of the case. 8. In the present case, the sole ground for rejection of the petitioner’s claim was the operation of Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. Since the said clause has been declared unconstitutional, and such declaration has attained finality upon its affirmation by the Division Bench of this Court, the very basis on which the petitioner’s claim was rejected no longer survives. 9. In that view of the matter, the decision of the District Level Committee contained in the Minutes dated 26.05.2016, insofar as it rejects/non- recommends the petitioner’s claim on the strength of Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly set aside. 10. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. 11. The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for appointment on compassionate grounds afresh, without reference to or reliance upon the condition relating to a minimum balance of three years of service contained in Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. The petitioner’s case shall now be considered strictly in accordance with the applicable policy or scheme governing compassionate appointments and subject to the fulfilment of all other eligibility conditions. 12. The appropriate authority shall undertake the aforesaid exercise and pass a reasoned order thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. Since this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, the competent authority shall Page No.# 6/6 take an independent decision in accordance with law. 14. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant