THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
Case at a glance
- Bench
- LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR
Outcome
Remanded
Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the District Level Committee of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR 18 th August, 2022 ORDER Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 as well as Mr. A. Phukan, learned standing counsel, Elementary Education Department, for respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5. The father of the petitioner, who was serving as Assistant Teacher in No. 177 Dighali L.P. School, Bordoloni, Ghilamara in the district of Lakhimpur, died-in- harness on 02-12-2010. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 22-02-2011. As there was no feedback to the petitioner with regard to the status of his application, the petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act, 2005, however, till date, no reply has been given to the petitioner.
Therefore, left with no other option, the petitioner approached this Court by way of WP(C) No. 5657/2014, which was disposed of by order dated 09- 09-2015, directing the District Elementary Education Officer, North Lakhimpur, to place the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment before the next District Level Committee Meeting. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was considered by the District Level Committee in its meetings held on 10-08-2011, 21- 01-2012 and 24-02-2017. However, his case could not be considered inasmuch as there was insufficient vacancy under the 5% reservation quote. When the District Level Committee held its meeting on 24-02-2017, the Department of Personal (B), Government of Assam had already issued the office memorandum dated 01-06- Page No.# 3/3 2015, wherein at Clause-15 it is provided that if sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to accommodate the applicants for compassionate appointment, it is open to the Administrative Department/Office to take up the matter with other Department/Office of the Government to provide early appointment to those applicants seeking compassionate appointment.
Operative part
A perusal of the minutes of the District Level Committee held on 24-02-2017 clearly indicates that Clause-15 of the office memorandum dated 01-06-2015 was not considered. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the District Level Committee of Lakhimpur district to consider the case of the petitioner afresh by taking into consideration the Clause-15 of the memorandum dated 01-06-2015 in its next immediate sitting. With the above observations and directions this writ petition stand disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the District Level Committee of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Right to Information Act, 2005.
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.