Point of Law: Deputy Commissioner - Appointment - By requiring Deputy Commissioner to pass a reasoned order, court do not indicate that there is any observation by this Court in this order that application of petitioner is required to be accepted or rejected and it is for Deputy Commissioner to arrive at his own independent finding on the matter by giving reasons.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. U.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 being the authorities in the Finance Department of the Government of Assam, Mr. S.R. Barua, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 6 being the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel (B) Department and the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari as well as Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 5 being the authorities in the Elementary Education Department of the Government of Assam.

2. Two persons namely Sri. Deraj Talukdar and Smti Mithu Devi have approached this Court by filing this common writ petition raising a grievance that their respective predecessors-in-interest had died in extremist violence and therefore they are entitled to an appointment in a Government job under the Assam Public Service (Appointment of Family Members of Persons Killed by Extremists/Terrorists) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1992). The respective legal rights to be appointed under the Rules of 1992 would be individual rights depending upon the individual facts and circumstance and therefore, prima-facie, we are unable to accept a joint petition by two separate claimants for such appointment. We have noticed that in this writ petition, the affidavit has been sworn by the petitioner Sri. Deraj Talukdar. Accordingly, we entertain this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner Sri. Deraj Talukdar and dismiss the petition on behalf of the other petitioner Smt. Mithu Devi by giving liberty to approach again, if so advised.

3. The petitioner claims that his brother Sultan Talukdar was shot dead by extremists at a place called Gopal Than near the Gopal Than High School in the Nalbari district on 07.09.1999 at about 9.30 a.m. In connection with the same incident, Nalbari PS Case No. 233/99 u/s 302 IPC was registered. It is also stated that after the death of Sultan Talukdar, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was granted by the Government of Assam to the father of Sultan Talukdar as ex-gratia as per Letter No. RR-37/2003/28 dated 27.09.2004.

4. The petitioner Sri. Deraj Talukdar claims to have passed the Class-VIII examination and being the brother of the deceased Sultan Talukdar had made an application for appointment as a Grade-IV on 24.06.2002 under the Rules of 1992. It is also stated that no other family member of the deceased Sultan Talukdar had been appointed by the respondents in a Government job under the Rules of 1992. The petitioner relies upon a communication dated 19.05.2017 from the District Elementary Education Officer, Nalbari which refers to a minutes of the DLC of Nalbari district for appointment under the Rules of 1992 in respect of the petitioner Deraj Talukdar.

5. Although the minutes of the DLC of Nalbari district is not made available in the writ petition, the petitioner by relying upon the communication dated 19.05.2017 seeks for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to issue an order of appointment to the petitioner under the Rules of 1992.

6. We have to take note of that the Rules of 1992 was subsequently repealed and withdrawn by the notification dated 22.06.2004 of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Personnel (B) Department. The notification dated 22.06.2004 provides that notwithstanding such repeal, anything done, any order made or action taken under the repealed Rules shall be deemed to have been validly done, made or taken. Upon the repeal of the Rules of 1992, an issue had arisen as to what would be the status of such applications made under the Rules of 1992 for an appointment in a Government job that was made prior to 22.06.2004 when the Rules were repealed. It is stated that the said issue was decided by the Division Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 09.06.2010 in WP (C) No. 3355/2007, which is reported in (2010) 3 GLT 443. The Division