GUWAHATI, India, July 11 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on June 11:

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed in connection with a claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that his father, Kamal Uddin Choudhury, who was working as Assistant Language Teacher of Tantoo M.E. School, Hailakandi had died in harness on 30.06.2012. The petitioner who claims to be eligible had applied for appointment on compassionate ground which was not considered on the ground of qualification. The petitioner had thereafter, filed WP(C)/1639/2023 in which an order was passed 24.03.2023 for consideration of the case of the petitioner. Thereafter, the District Level Committee (hereinafter DLC), Hailakandi in its meeting held on 19.09.2023 had recommended the case of the petitioner. However, due to the impugned Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024, the consideration of the petitioner cannot be done and hence, this writ petition.

3. I have heard Shri AH Alamgir, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri B. Deuri, learned State Counsel and Shri G. Pegu, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the OM dated 18.09.2024 is unreasonable and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the said OM is based on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219 and the facts of the said case were distinguishable from the facts of the present case.

5. Per contra, Shri B. Deuri, learned State Counsel has submitted that the death of the government servant being in the year 2012, no case for appointment on compassionate ground can be made out now and therefore, the petitioner would not have the locus to maintain the present challenge qua the OM dated 18.09.2024.

6. By endorsing the submission made by the learned State Counsel, Shri Pegu, learned Standing Counsel of the Department has submitted that the OM dated 18.09.2024 is in sync with the objective of the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground.

7. The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.

8. The materials on record make it clear that the death of the father of the petitioner was on 30.06.2012 and as per the averments made in paragraph 3, the petitioner claims to have applied for appointment on compassionate ground which was not considered on the ground of underqualification. However, neither any documents nor any details of such application or rejection have been given. It is further not explained as to what took the petitioner more than a decade to approach this Court by filing WP(C)/1639/2023.

9. There is another aspect of the matter with regard to the very objective of the scheme for compassionate appointment. The very objective of the scheme, which is an exception to the general mode of recruitment is to give immediate succor to a family which has lost its sole breadwinner who was a Government servant and such objective would not survive after a gap of about 13 years.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x%2FbxxlirQuebiH4b6iwfaICEd8s57UepzG9WCgX975sn&caseno=WP(C)/3179/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010118552025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.