The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a compassionate appointment must be in accordance with the applicable policy and cannot be based on retrospective application of subsequent policies. The court emphasized that compassionate appointment is a means of providing immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased government employee and should be considered in a proper perspective.

JUDGMENT :

[Kardak Ete, J.]

Heard Mr. S. Khound, learned Counsel representing the appellant. Also heard Mr. R.K. Borah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam representing the respondent Nos.1—3, 5, 4, 8 & 9, Mr. D. Nath, learned Standing Counsel for the Public Works (Rural Road) Department representing the respondents No.10 & 11 and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned standing counsel for the Finance Department representing the respondent No.6.

2. This intra-Court Appeal is directed against the order dated 05.12.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.575/2021, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that as the case of the appellant/writ petitioner was pending for more than two years, the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, a policy decision, which mandates that if an application is pending for more than two years from the date of making such application due to want of vacancy, the said application would not require any further consideration, has not been put to challenge and there is no available vacancy.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant/writ petitioner had challenged the rejection of his case for compassionate appointment by the State Level Committee (herein after referred to as ‘the SLC’) in its meeting held on 23.12.2019, whereby the case of the appellant has been rejected on the following grounds: that the application for compassionate appointment has been pending for recommendation for more than two years, therefore, said application has spent its force; that the petitioner does not possess the required educational qualification for the post of Sectional Assistant i.e. Higher Secondary (Science) and there is not a single earmarked 5% quota vacancy available for appointment on compassionate ground. The ground on which the appellant had challenged the minutes of the SLC meeting is that the grounds which have been assigned by the minutes of the SLC meeting held on 23.12.2019 are new grounds which were not there earlier.

4. Father of the appellant/Writ Petitioner Late Jatin Kalita, had died-in-harness on 11.01.2013, while he was working as Grade-IV employee in the Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dhemaji Rural Road Division, Dhemaji, Silapathar. The appellant having Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree and being eligible, had submitted an application on 11.02.2013 for appointment in any Grade-III/IV category post in the Department under the compassionate appointment scheme. The District Level Committee (herein after referred to as ‘the DLC’) meeting held on 24.05.2016, recommended and forwarded the case of the appellant to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, PWD (Rural Roads) Department for consideration by the SLC. The SLC vide its meeting dated 31.12.2018 had rejected the application of the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground as no vacancy was available as the 5% quota had already been filled up.

5. The appellant challenged the rejection of his case by the SLC vide order dated 31.12.2018, by filing the Writ Petition (C) No.2634/2019 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 29.04.2019 and remanded back the matter to the SLC for re-examination of the availability of vacancies in other Departments as required under the relevant Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. Thereafter, the SLC vide its meeting held on 23.12.2019, the case of the petitioner was again rejected on three counts as mentioned herein above.

6. Being aggrieved by the rejection vide said minutes of meeting dated 23.12.2019, the appellant again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition being WP(C) No.575/2021, on the ground that in its earlier minutes of the meeting dated 31.12.2018, the ground of rejection was cited as the 5% quota being already filled up, whereas to the best knowledge of the appellant, there were 26 numbers of vacant posts of Grade-III/IV, in the Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dhemaji Rural Road Division, Dhemaji, Silapathar.