Point of Law : law of compassionate appointment requires that an application is made against any available vacant post to which the applicant may be duly qualified for and it should not be considered in respect of a specific post, irrespective of whether the applicant mentioned such post or not.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M K Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S Borua, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2, 7 and 8 being the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar and Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar respectively, Mr. N Upadhaya, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 being the authorities under the Irrigation Department, Mr. R K Mushahari, learned counsel for the respondents no. 4, 6 and 9 being the authorities under the BTC and Mr. A Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 being the authorities under the Finance Department, Government of Assam.

2. The father of the petitioner Sankar Barman who was serving as a driver, Grade-III in the Irrigation Department, Kokrajhar died in harness on 14.05.2015 and on his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 08.06.2015. The said application was considered by the DLC of BTC in its meeting of 08.09.2017. The DLC arrived at its conclusion that two posts in the cadre of Junior Assistant and Section Assistant were available for compassionate appointment and accordingly, the petitioner was recommended for one of the vacant post of Section Assistant, Grade-III. When the recommendation was placed before the SLC in its meeting of 15.09.2021, it stood rejected on the ground that the petitioner having the qualification of HSSLC would not meet the required qualification for the post of Section Assistant. Being aggrieved, this writ petition is instituted.

3. Mr. M K Das, learned counsel for the petitioner raises a contention that when the application for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner on 08.06.2015, the required qualification was matriculation and therefore, the SLC was incorrect in rejecting the recommendation on the ground that the petitioner did not have the required qualification.

4. We are unable to accept the said contention of Mr. M K Das, learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as per the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph 25 of N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnatka and ors. reported in (2020) 7SCC 617 in respect of compassionate appointment, the norms prevailing on the date of consideration would be relevant and not the norms as it stood on the date of application unlike that of a regular appointment.

5. From the said point of view, we are unable to notice any infirmity in the decision of the SLC rejecting the application of the petitioner but however, the law of compassionate appointment requires that an application is made against any available vacant post to which the applicant may be duly qualified for and it should not be considered in respect of a specific post, irrespective of whether the applicant mentioned such post or not.

6. Further, paragraph 15 of the OM dated 01.06.2015 requires that the consideration be made against any vacant post in any department for which the applicant may be qualified for.

7. Considering the aforesaid aspect, we remand the matter back to the DLC of BTC for a fresh consideration on the claim of the petitioner against any available vacant post in any department for which the petitioner may be duly qualified for. The application of the petitioner be placed before the next available DLC of BTC.

8. Writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above.