Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010194772020 2026:GAU-AS:8682 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/490/2021 NABAJYOTI BARMAN S/O LATE ATUL CHANDRA BARMAN, R/O KHATA RUPIABATHAN, P.O. CHAMATA, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI 21 3:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCE ASSAM GUWAHATI. 4:THE GENERAL MANAGER DIST. INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CENTRE NALBARI 5:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECY. CUM SECY. INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPTT. Page No.# 2/8 DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 6:THE UNDER SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPTT. 7:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NALBARI Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI, MS R P BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 16/06/2026 Heard Ms. K Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present proceeding has assailed the decision arrived at by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 18.01.2020, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground of lack of vacancy within the quota reserved for appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. The petitioner in the present writ petition has projected that his father, Atul Chandra Barman, while working as Assistant Manager in the establishment of the General Manager, District Industries & Commerce Center, Nalbari, had died-in-harness on 26.05.2005. The petitioner, thereafter, on 06.08.2005, submitted an application before the departmental authorities, praying for Page No.# 3/8 consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, the application of the petitioner was processed and was decided to be placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee. The District Level Committee in its meeting held on 30.03.2013, decided to forward the proposal of the petitioner for appointment against a Grade-III post, to be placed before the State Level Committee. The State Level Committee in its meeting held on 03.10.2015, considering the recommendations made in favour of the petitioner, herein, by the jurisdictional District Level Committee, proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner, by holding that there was no vacant post available under the 5% quota reserved for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner, being aggrieved approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 6104/2016. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.11.2018, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition, directing the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioner before the State Level Committee in its next available meeting, for a fresh consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, the application submitted by the petitioner again came to be placed before the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 18.01.2020 and the said committee, on consideration of the application submitted by the petitioner, proceeded to reject the same, holding that there was no vacant post available for recommending the name of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. Page No.# 4/8 4. Ms. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the above facts noticed hereinabove, has submitted that a perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the State Level Committee, held on 03.10.2015, would reveal that the case of the petitioner was not considered on its merit. 5. It is submitted that the recommendations made in favour of the petitioner by the District Level Committee was not taken note of. Accordingly, Ms. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision of the State Level Committee arrived at in its meeting held on 18.01.2020, in respect of the petitioner, would mandate an interference, with a further direction to the State Level Committee to consider the case of the petitioner on merits in its next available meeting. 6. Per contra, Mr. A Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate, has submitted that the only reason for not recommending the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds by the State Level Committee was that there was no vacant post available within the 5% quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds. He further submits that the father of the petitioner having died-in-harness on 26.05.2005, after lapse of around 21 years, there would arise no occasion for a direction being issued upon the respondent authorities, by this Court, for a fresh consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. 7. In support of his submissions, Mr. Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate, has relied upon the 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. Page No.# 5/8 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. The petitioner had submitted his application in pursuance to the death of his father in harness, on 06.08.2005. The said application was initially considered by the District Level Committee in its meeting held on 30.03.2013. 10. A perusal of the minutes of the said selection committee would go to reveal that the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner was not against a particular vacant post, but was by indicating the vacant post available in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari. 11. On a perusal of the minutes of the said committee, this Court does not find that there was a specification made therein, that the vacancies highlighted also fell within the 5% quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds. The State Level Committee in its meeting held on 03.10.2015, on consideration of the recommendations made in respect of the petitioner, herein, by the jurisdictional District Level Committee, had proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner, on the ground that there was no vacancy available within the 5% quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds. 12. The petitioner, being aggrieved, had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 6104/2016. 13. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.11.2018, had required the case of the petitioner to be considered afresh by the State Level Committee. Accordingly, the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 18.01.2020 considered the case of the petitioner afresh. However, again the case of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that there was no Page No.# 6/8 vacant post available within the mandated 5% quota for appointment on compassionate grounds. 14. A perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the State Level Committee held on 18.01.2020, would reveal that the said committee had considered one vacancy in the District of Nalbari, existing in the Industries & Commerce Department and had recommended one Kaushik Patgiri against the same. No further vacancy is found to have been considered in the said meeting by the State Level Committee. Accordingly, the reasoning advanced by the State Level Committee for rejection of the claim of the petitioner, i.e., non-availability of vacancy within the 5% quota mandated for appointment on compassionate grounds, is not found to be erroneous by this Court. 15. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the said decision of the State Level Committee arrived at in its meeting held on 18.01.2020 qua the claim of the petitioner would not mandate an interference from this Court. 16. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court finds that the father of the petitioner had died-in-harness on 26.05.2005, although, the petitioner proximate to the death of his father in harness, had submitted an application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The said application was for the first time placed in the meeting of the jurisdictional District Level Committee only on 30.03.2013. The petitioner is found not to have diligently pursued his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, w.e.f. 2005 to 2013 for long 8 (eight) years. The initial consideration made by the District Level Committee, in respect of the claim made by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds after 8 (eight) years from the date of death of his father was ground sufficient for rejecting the case of the petitioner. Page No.# 7/8 However, it is found that the said committee had recommended his case. The recommendation of the District Level Committee was placed initially before the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 03.10.2015. The same as noticed hereinabove, was rejected on the ground of lack of vacancy. Thereafter, in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner was again placed before the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 18.01.2020 and again the claim made by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there was lack of vacancy within the mandated 5% quota for appointment on compassionate grounds. 17. This Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2006(4) GLT 674, had laid down the principles for consideration of a claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. 18. Clause 10 of the said principles mandates that such application, if had remained unconsidered for want of vacancy for more than a period of 2 (two) years, such application would not mandate a further consideration. The petitioner’s application after it was considered by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 03.10.2015 was found to have remained pending for more than 2 (two) years and accordingly, the said application had lost its force. 19. Further, more than 21 years is found to have been lapsed since the date of death of his father, which had occasioned on 26.05.2005. Accordingly, considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter, the immediacy required to be maintained for effecting appointment on compassionate ground, is found to have been lost in respect of claim of the petitioner, herein. The claim of the petitioner is found by this Court to have been rendered stale. Accordingly, it would not be permissible for this Court to pass a direction, requiring the Page No.# 8/8 respondent authorities to accord a fresh consideration to the stale claim 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]. 20. In view of the above discussions, the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition for a fresh consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds, stands rejected. 21. Accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant