Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is meant to address immediate financial crises. The sense of immediacy is diluted and lost in cases of prolonged delay, and compassionate appointment cannot be held to be a matter of any vested right.

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging, inter alia the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground which has been done by the District Level Committee, Lakhimpur (hereinafter DLC) in its meeting dated 13.12.2022.

2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that his father, Topedhar Bhuyan who was working as a Constable in Assam Police had died in harness on 01.07.2007. He left behind his wife and three minor children including the petitioner. The petitioner was stated to be a minor at the time of the death of his father. The petitioner being the eldest son of his family had submitted an application in the year 2007. As his case was not considered, he had approached this Court by filing WP(C)/6038/2011 which was disposed of by this Court vide an order dated 09.01.2012 with a direction for consideration of the case of the petitioner.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of such direction, no action was taken and therefore, the petitioner had filed a second writ petition being WP(C)/4287/2021. In the said writ petition, while notice was issued vide order dated 03.09.2021, it was observed that pendency would not be a bar for consideration of the case of the petitioner.

4. Consequently, the matter was taken up by the DLC in its meeting dated 08.11.2021. Against Sl. No. 4, though the name of the petitioner was forwarded to the SLC, an observation was made that the petitioner was a minor at that time. The SLC vide minutes of meeting dated 10.02.2022 had however rejected the case of the petitioner on account of late submission of the application.

5. The petitioner thereafter had filed another writ petition in this Court being WP(C)/6352/2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 26.09.2022 whereby the minutes of the DLC dated 18.11.2021 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the DLC for a fresh consideration.

6. The DLC, accordingly in its meeting dated 13.12.2022 considered the case of the petitioner. Upon such consideration, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was minor at the time of the death of his father, who was the concerned Government servant. It is this rejection which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

7. I have heard Shri M. J. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri J.K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no negligence on his part in applying for appointment on compassionate ground. It is submitted that a proper consideration would only be made after the petitioner had attained majority and could be offered of appointment in a Government job.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order of this Court dated 18.11.2022 passed in WP(C)/3290/2020 [Rajesh Nath Vs. State of Assam]. In the said case, a direction has been made for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground wherein the petition of the candidate was rejected on the ground of late submission as the said candidate was a minor at the time of the death of the Government servant. Reliance have also been placed in an order dated 13.12.2022 of this Court passed in WP(C)/6271/2022 [Paban Chetry Vs. State of Assam] in which a direction for consideration has been made for appointment on compassionate ground. In the said case of Paban Chetry (supra), this Court has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2016) 9 SCC 195.

10. Per contra, Shri Goswami, learned State Counsel has submitted that the objective of the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground is to give immediate relief to a bereaved family which has lost its sole bread winner, who was a Government servant. It is submitted in the instant case that the death was on 01.07.2007 and in the meantime, almost