The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for judicial rethinking and laying down specific principles to govern the exercise of the power of compassionate appointment, emphasizing prompt appointments and financial considerations.

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. Certain common questions having confronted the Court, this group of cases were listed analogously, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The core question that arises in the writ petitions under consideration relates to the principles governing appointment in public service on compassionate ground and more importantly the correct modalities that should govern exercise of the powers it the matter of compassionate appointment by the State Authorities. Such exercise of powers in making compassionate appointment by the State, either on its own or on the strength of Court orders passed from time to time, being clearly discernible not to be in conformity with the laid down principles evolved by a long process of judicial precedents, the Court is of the view that time has come for a judicial rethinking and, in the absence of necessary governmental action, for exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, in public interest, to lay down the correct parameters that should govern the exercise of the power of compassionate appointment.

2. To understand the principles governing the exercise of power and to determine what should be the correct modalities for its exercise, the elaborate arguments advanced by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the claimants have been heard. Such arguments, however, have centered around, what the claimants contend to be a better right vested in them for appointment on compassionate ground. Shri K.N. Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, Shri I. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, P.W.D. and Shri M.K. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Education have been heard to understand the precise practice and procedure prevailing as on today in making compassionate appointment. Learned Counsels have very painstakingly explained to the Courts the details of the ground realities of the situation. The Court had also appointed Shri H. Roy, learned senior Counsel as the Amicus Curiae in the case. Shri H. Roy, learned Amicus Curiae, in the course of his arguments, has tried to place before the Court the principles applicable in the case as evolved by the judicial pronouncements made from time to time commencing with the case of Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468. Shri Roy, learned Amicus Curiae has cited several other decisions, out of which the case of Umesh Nagpal reported in 1994 (4) SCC 138 constitutes the half way mark in the process of evolution of the law and the principles governing compassionate appointment. Placing certain other decisions, particularly, the one reported in (2004) 7 SCC 271 (GM v. Kunti Tiwari), Shri Roy has concluded by citing a judgment dated 16.7.2006 delivered by the Apex Court in the case of State of J and K and Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006) 5 SCC 766. The submissions advanced by the learned Counsels for the contesting parties including the learned Amicus Curiae and the numerous case laws and judicial precedents cited at the Bar have been duly considered by the Court.

3. At the very outset, this Court would like to make it clear that in rendering the present judgment and order, this Court does not intend and in fact cannot intend to depart from the various order passed by Coordinate Benches of this Court. Judicial discipline would require conformity with the said orders which are basically to the effect that eligible claims should be considered within a time bound programme in accordance with the policy in force. What is sought to be attempted in the present exercise is to discern the correct principles of the law that should guide the actions of the administrative authority so that the process of implementation of the policy of compassionate appointment can be in conformity with the correct principles of law, which principles, of late, appear to have been lost sight of.

4. The numerous precedents cited at the Bar will not require a detailed