High Court · 2009

I have heard Mr M.Bhagawati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr SK Das, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Mr BC Saikia, learned Stat e counsel and Mr N.Haque, learned counsel for the Respondent No.5. The pleadings of the parties throw up the above facts. Both the petition er and the Respondent No.5 having submitted their applications on 26.6.2001 and 6.2.2006 respectively for compassionate appointment against Grade III posts comm ensurate with their academic qualifications, those were processed and those i n terms of the guidelines laid down by this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das and Ors v s. State of Assam & Ors(2006) 4 GLT 674 and were duly placed before the Distric t Level Committee, Kamrup for scrutiny of their candidature and recommendation. In its meeting held on 2.6.2007 the District Level Committee , Kamrup recomme nded the respondent No.5 and the petitioner in that order for appointment agains t one post of Arabic teacher. The recommendation of the District Level Committee , Kamrup as above vis a vis the petitioner and the respondent No.5 ,on being placed before the State Level Committee, it in its meeting held on 1.12.07 evol ved three criteria to finally select the candidates for such appointment, one of those being to reject the prayer for compassionate appointment which on the date of the meeting of the District Level Committee , Kamrup had been pending f or more than two years. The State Level Committee construes such a disqualificat ion to be one of the mandates of the verdict of this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra). By applying that criteria the recommendation of the District Level Comm ittee ,Kamrup, qua, the petitioner was annulled and the respondent No.5 was reco mmended for appointment as an Assistant teacher(Classical) on compassionate cons iderations. Being aggrieved , the petitioner is before this Court. The Respondent No.4, Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, the Chairman of the Di strict Level Committee, Kamrup in his affidavit has affirmed that in its meetin g held on 2.6.07 it had recommended the respondent No.5 and the petitioner for compassionate appointment as Assistant Teacher( Classical). The Deputy Director of Secondary Education, Assam, has pleaded that as d uring the period 2001 to 1.1.2005 ,11 posts of Arabic Teachers had remained vac ant , computed on the basis of 5% thereof ,no vacancy earmarked for compassio nate appointment as on 1.1.2005, was available to be filled up by that mode. Th e answering respondent, however, has admitted that before holding of meeting of the District Level Committee, Kamrup on 2.6.2007, 18 posts of Arabic Teachers in Kamrup district had fallen vacant and therefore one post was under 5% quota was available to be allotted for compassionate appointment. It has ,however, being claimed that the petitioner’s claim was rejected not only on the ground that on the date of the meeting of the District Level Committee, Kamrup, his applicatio n for compassionate appointment had been pending for over two years, but also a s the respondent No.5 was found to be more suitable therefor. The respondent No.5 in his counter has substantially reiterated the ave rments made by the respondent No.2. Mr Bhagawati has argued that as the sole ground on which the petitioner ’s recommendation made by the District Level Committee ,Kamrup has been rejected by the State Level Committee is that, his application on 2.6.07 had been pendi ng for over two years, the same is manifestly illegal and erroneous and that the refore, this is a fit case where the impugned decision be interfered with and an appropriate writ and/or direction be issued to the respondents to reconsider t he case of the petitioner on merits, strictly in terms of the guidelines laid do wn by this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das(Supra). In support of his contention, Mr B hagawati has placed reliance on an order dated 2.9.2008 passed by this Court in WP( C) No.2447/, Ajit Pator and Ors vs. State of Assam and Ors. Mr Das, while abiding by the stand of the Director of Secondary Educatio n, Assam as above, has urged that the petitioner is not entitled to be recommend ed for compassionate appointment as on the date of the sitting of the District Level Committee, Kamrup, no vacancy therefor was available for appointment of Ar abic teacher. According to him, as the petitioner’s application was pending for more than two years on the date of the meeting of the District Level Committee, Kamrup and further, the respondent No.5 had been adjudged tobe more suitable tha n him, the challenge to the decision of the State Level Committee lacks substanc e and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Mr Haque, while endorsing the above, has maintained that even assuming t hat the petitioner’s case was wrongly rejected on the ground that it had been pe nding for consideration for over two years, he is not entitled to any writ dire cting the respondents to recommend him for compassionate appointment. According to him, the criteria of ’first applied first appointed ’ evolved by the State Level Committee is beyond the guidelines laid down by this Court and therefore is non est in law. The pleaded facts and the arguments advanced have received the due consi deration of this Court. That the cases of both the petitioner and the respondent No.5 had been processed in terms of the guidelines in Achyut Ranjan Das(Supra) before placing it before the District Level Committee , Kamrup on 2.6.07 is a matter of record. The minutes of the meeting of the State Level Committee demo nstrate that the respondent No.5 and the petitioner had been recommended by it ( District Level Committee,Kamrup ) for appointment as Arabic teacher on compassio nate ground, the respondent no.5 has been placed above the petitioner.However, t he minutes of the meeting of the District Level Committee ,Kamrup do not in spec ific terms disclose that the respondent No.5 is considered to be more suitable than the petitioner as contended by the respondent Nos 2 and 5 as above. Be that as it may, the ground on which the petitioner’s candidature has been rejected b y the State Level Committee appears to be that his prayer for compassionate appo intment had been pending more than two years on the date of the meeting of the D istrict Level Committee, Kamrup i.e. 2.6.07. The minutes of the meeting of the S tate Level Committee held on 1.12.07 do not disclose any other reason for reject ion of the recommendation of the petitioner by the District Level Committee, Kam rup. It is therefore, neither permissible nor expedient to infer that the reje ction of the petitioner’s candidature had been on the ground of nonavailability of vacancies of compassionate appointment or his inferiority in the measure o f preference qua, the respondent No.5. This Court in Ajit Patar and Ors, vs. State of Assam and ors [ WP( C) No .2447/08] was seized with a similar situation where on the purported compliance of the guidelines laid down by this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das(Supra), the app lications of candidates for compassionate appointment had been summarily rejec ted on the ground that the same had been pending fore more than two years on the date of consideration thereof by the jurisdictional District Level Committee. On a conjoint reading of Clause 1 and 10 of the guidelines , this Court observe d as follows :- (cid:28) Reading of the aforesaid two directions issued by this Court, it clear ly appears that as a one-time measure all pending cases were required to be cons idered in accordance with the other specific directions contained in paragraph 7 of the judgment. Once consideration of a case as a one-time measure is over, su ch applications that may remain pending are nt required to be considered, if a p eriod of more than two years had elapsed. (cid:29) In that view of the matter, having regard to the interpretation provided by this Court to the manner of invocation of the guidelines, it is appa rent that the rejection of the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment o n the sole ground that his request therefor had been pending for more than two y ears at the time of consideration thereof by the District Level Committee, Kamru p is wholly incompatible to the letter and spirit of the determination in Achyut Ranjan Das(Supra) and therefore is untenable in law. In this premise, the decision of the State Level Committee reje cting the petitioner’s candidature for compassionate appointment by overruling the recommendation of the District Level Committee is hereby interfered with. Co nsequently, the issue stands remitted to the State Level Committee for a fresh c onsideration of the petitioner’s candidature on merits for compassionate appoint ment. Needless to say, that in doing do, having regard to the number of vacancie s available for such appointment, the said committee would also in terms of the guidelines laid down by this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das(Supra) consider the ca se of the respondent No.5 . As the matter relates to compassionate appointment, which is already delayed, it is provided that the case of the petitioner and respondent No.5 would be placed in the next sitting of the State Level Committ ee for consideration in terms of the determinations made by this Court. The petition stands allowed in the above terms. No costs.