THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
Outcome
Allowed
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The Supreme Court in N.C Santosh –vs- State of Karnataka and others, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 in paragraph 19 had held that the law governing compassionate appointment is that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be…
- Para 55. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in N.C Santosh (supra), the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by the DLC of Hailakandi in its meeting dated 05.10.2021 stands set aside and accordingly, we…
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A H ALAMGIR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
16.03.2022
O R D E R HeardMr. AH Alamgir, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2, 5 and 6 being the authorities in the Elementary Education Department of the Government of Assam and Ms. DD Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents No. 3 and 4 being the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi and The Sub Divisional Officer (Sadar), Hailakandi.
The father of the petitioner Sofiqul Haque Choudhury, who was an Assistant Teacher in Bhatirkupa Senior Madrassa, died in harness on 30.06.2011 and on his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 25.06.2012. At the relevant time, when the application was made, the petitioner did not have the qualification of Higher Secondary, but in the year 2016, it is an admitted position that the petitioner had acquired the Page No.# 3/3 said qualification.
The application of the petitioner was considered by the DLC of Hailakandi district in its meeting of 05.10.2021. When the consideration was made, the petitioner had the relevant qualification of Higher Secondary although at the time of submission of the application, he may not have the qualification. The DLC of Hailakandi rejected the application of the petitioner for the reason that at the time of submission of the application, the petitioner did not have the qualification of Higher Secondary.
The Supreme Court in N.C Santosh –vs- State of Karnataka and others, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 in paragraph 19 had held that the law governing compassionate appointment is that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of the claim for compassionate appointment.
Operative part
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in N.C Santosh (supra), the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by the DLC of Hailakandi in its meeting dated 05.10.2021 stands set aside and accordingly, we remand the matter back to the DLC of Hailakandi district to give a fresh consideration on the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on its own merit as per law. The application of the petitioner now be placed in the next available DLC of Hailakandi district. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.