GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON JAYANTI MEDHI V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

GUWAHATI, India, June 3 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on May 3:

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging, inter alia the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground which has been done by the State Level Committee (hereinafter SLC) in its meeting dated 31.12.2018.

2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that her husband, Paresh Medhi, who was working as a Muster Roll Worker in the PWD, had died in harness on 29.02.2016. The petitioner claims that he was also issued an Identity Card No. J/93/12 dated 01.11.1993 and also claims that his services was regularized. The petitioner claims to be eligible had applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 23.09.2016 and her case was also considered by the District Level Committee (DLC). Thereafter, the matter was taken by the SLC in its meeting dated 31.12.2018 wherein the case of the petitioner has been rejected. It is this action, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

3. I have heard Shri K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri JK Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam and Ms. S. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, PWD.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is unreasonable and arbitrary. It is contended that the application for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner within the prescribed time and therefore, the reason assigned that such application was made after one Syed Imanul Ahmed for a single vacancy would be arbitrary. It is also submitted that recommendation of the case of the petitioner by the DLC would establish that the petitioner has a valid claim for such appointment.

5. Per contra, Shri Goswami, learned State Counsel has submitted that the reasons cited for rejecting the case of the petitioner are relevant and germane and therefore, the submission that there is illegality cannot be countenanced. He has also highlighted the aspect of delay in approaching the Court and also the aspect of the claim for any such direction in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219.

6. By endorsing the submission made by the learned State Counsel, Ms. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, PWD has submitted that from the date of death, more than 9 years have passed and at this stage, a claim for appointment on compassionate ground would not be justified.

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 husband of the petitioner was on 29.02.2016 and the rejection by the SLC was of December, 2018. The writ petition itself was instituted in the year 2021. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 24.05.2019, the representation was filed, apart from there being nothing on record that the said representation was indeed received by the authorities, from the said date also, there is an unexplained delay of more than two and half years as the writ petition was instituted only on 02.11.2021.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=QnBUxJ6a3gIx%2B5SFrUiAoNLkQWcJIIjdyyo8cwmQoRLy4Av6SFfwbaeQ2%2BBFGlTd&caseno=WP(C)/5901/2021&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010184462021&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.