JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. R. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 being the authorities in the Govt. of Assam through the Chief Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari and Mr. S.M.T. Chistie, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 6 being the authorities under the Secondary Education Department of the Govt. of Assam.

2. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Late Harinath Kalita who was serving as an Assistant Teacher (Science) in the Haribhanga High School, Nalbari, died in harness on 24.1.2017 and on his death, the petitioner made an application in the prescribed format for compassionate appointment on 3.2.2017. Admittedly the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was made within the prescribed time limit.

The DLC of Nalbari district in its meeting held on 21.3.2018 recommended the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground against the post of Grade-III (LDA) in the unreserved category taking note of her educational qualification as well as her age of 45 years 9 months 22 days. The DLC had also identified a specific vacancy against which the petitioner is to be appointed. When the recommendation of the DLC was placed before the SLC in its meeting of 4.1.2021, the recommendation by the DLC made in favour of the petitioner stood rejected by providing that the petitioner was over aged at the time of her application. It was noted that the petitioner was 44 years 8 months 25 days at the time when the application was made, whereas, the upper age limit for government job for general candidate was 40 years. Apparently, the SLC rejected the recommendation of the petitioner on the sole ground that she was over aged when the application was made. A question has arisen as to whether any upper age limit is applicable in respect of compassionate appointment. The said question has been settled by this court in the judgment dated 24.8.2010 in WP(C) No. 2989/2010, wherein, it has been specifically held that for the purpose of compassionate appointment, there would not be any upper age limit. The said provision is made in paragraph 7 of the judgment which is extracted below

“7. That apart, which is more important looking at the policy behind the scheme of compassionate appointment, the Office Memorandum dated 4.1.1992 cannot be made applicable for compassionate appointment. The object of the compassionate appointment scheme being to provide immediate succour to the family of the deceased, if the concept of age bar applicable in the case of normal direct recruitment is imported into the concept of compassionate appointment, it is possible in many cases that the spouse of the deceased will be overaged when a case for making compassionate appointment arises. For example, if a deceased employee dies at the age of 55 years, leaving behind his widow, who is 50 years old, by application of the Office Memorandum dated 4.1.1992 she would not be entitled to get compassionate appointment also. In my opinion, to accept the contention of the respondent-authorities in this behalf will defeat the very object of providing immediate succour to the dependents of the deceased. The case history reveals that though the husband of the deceased died in harness on 30.4.2004, she was forced to run from pillar to post to obtain the elusive relief of compassionate appointment. The respondent-authorities ought to have been more sensitive to the plight of widows like the petitioner, she was and is still chasing a mirage of compassionate appointment even after the 6 years of the death of her husband. In the view that I have taken, the petitioner has made out a dear case for interference of this court.”

3. This court had specifically held that if the contention of there being upper age limit in respect of compassionate appointment is accepted, the same will defeat the very object of providing immediate succour to the dependents of the deceased in the form of