Pallab Saikia v. The State of Assam and 3 Ors

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010123282022

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4493/2022 PALLAB SAIKIA S/O. BINANDA CHANDRA SAIKIA, R/O. BETBARI, P.O. BHULBARI BOKANADI, P.S. LALUK, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY., TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT. GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019. 3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT CIRCLE NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM. 4:THE DIST. LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S KANUNGOE Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU. Page No.# 2/3

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

24.07.2023 O R D E R

Heard Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, Government of Assam, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No.4.

¶2The father of the petitioner, late Binanda Chandra Saikia, while serving as an Assistant Teacher in Phulbari High School, Phulbari, Bokanadi in the district of Lakhimpur, Assam died in harness on 03.11.2011. The petitioner, thereafter, made an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 02.01.2012. As his case was not placed before the concerned District Level Committee (DLC) for consideration, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.1106/2014, which was disposed of by order dated 03.03.2014 directing the respondents to place the application of the petitioner and thereafter take a decision in the matter. The case of the petitioner was, thereafter, placed before the DLC, Lakhimpur district on 21.04.2012. However, his case could not be considered due to lack of vacancy. The petitioner's case was again placed before the concerned DLC on 16.03.2013. However, his case was not recommended without giving any reasons. The petitioner's case was again considered by the concerned DLC in its meeting held on 18.12.2013. However, his case was again not recommended without giving any reasons. The concerned DLC again considered the case of the petitioner in its meeting held on 25.07.2014. In the said meeting also, the case of the petitioner was again not considered without giving any reasons. Page No.# 3/3 Lastly, the concerned DLC, in its meeting held on 30.04.2022, considered the case of the petitioner and rejected his case on the ground that it had spent its force.

¶3A consideration of the DLC minutes held on 21.04.2012, 16.03.2013,

18.12.2013 and 25.07.2014 would indicate that the case of the petitioner was not considered on 21.04.2012 due to lack of vacancy and thereafter the three other meetings of the DLC, i.e., 16.03.2013, 18.12.2013 and 25.07.2014, his case was rejected without giving any reasons. Lastly, in its minutes dated

30.04.2022, the concerned DLC rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that it had spent its force.

¶4What transpires from a perusal of the minutes of the DLC meetings is that no appropriate reasons were given for rejection of the case of the petitioner and the last DLC rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that it had spent its force. If there was any delay, the same cannot be attributed to the petitioner as the delay was caused by the respondents.

¶5In that view of the matter, the matter is remanded to the concerned DLC for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner in accordance with law in its next immediate sitting. While considering the case of the petitioner, the DLC shall take into consideration Clause 15 of the Office Memorandum dated

01.06.2022.

¶6With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant