Compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress, and the financial condition of the family at the time of the death of the deceased employee is the primary consideration. Laches or undue delay may disentitle the grant of relief.

1.Heard Mr. B. Purkayashta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borah, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department appearing for the respondent no. 1, 3 & 4 and Ms. D. Das Barman, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondents no. 2 & 5.

2. The grievance as raised in the present proceeding by the petitioner pertains to non-consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground against a post commensurating to his educational qualification. The petitioner has also in this connection, presented a challenge to the decision as arrived at by the jurisdictional District Level Committee (DLC) in its meeting held on 02.02.2022, towards rejecting the case for appointment on compassionate ground of the petitioner herein.

3. The father of the petitioner herein Late Ala Uddin Laskar, while working as an Assistant Teacher at Sridharpur M.V. School, Cachar, Assam had died in harness on 10.09.2005. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time was studying in Class-XII; however, on the request of his family members, the petitioner submitted an application on 10.01.2006, praying for appointment on compassionate ground. It is contended by the petitioner herein that his case was considered by the jurisdictional DLC in its meeting held on 15.03.2012; however, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the same was not submitted within the period so mandated. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by way of instituting WP(C)/5977/2021 and this Court, vide order dated 15.11.2021 was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition by requiring the jurisdictional DLC to examine if any vacancy is available, to which the petitioner may be qualified, as of the year 2008 and if Yes, to pass appropriate order(s) in the matter.

4. It is contended that the case of the petitioner was again placed before the jurisdictional DLC in its meeting held on 02.02.2022; however, the case of the petitioner was again rejected. The jurisdictional DLC, while proceeding to consider the case of the petitioner recorded that the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, had lodged an FIR against the petitioner in connection with a case of fake appointment. Further, it was recorded that the Director of Elementary Education Department, Assam, has also instructed the District Elementary Department Officer, Cachar, Silchar to lodge an FIR against the petitioner in Silchar and Borkhola Police Stations in this connection.

5. It was also recorded that the petitioner herein had submitted an application dated 02.03.2021 along with a copy of the said fake appointment letter and prayed for release of his arrear salary, whereas there was no record found regarding the joining of the petitioner in the school, where he was projected to have been appointed. The jurisdictional DLC also held that the application of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher, Lower Primary School was not mandated to be considered inasmuch as he did not possess the aggregate percentage as stipulated for recruitment to the post in question and accordingly, on the said grounds, the case of the applicant was rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding.

6. The petitioner has also by way of filing an additional affidavit, brought on record the FIR filed by the authorities in the matter and as reflected in the said decision of the DLC. It is an admitted position in the matter that the father of the petitioner had died in harness on 10.09.2005 and thereafter, the petitioner had submitted his application on 10.01.2006 for appointment on compassionate ground. The case of the petitioner was initially rejected by the jurisdictional DLC on the ground that application submitted by the petitioner was so submitted after the expiry of the period mandated for the same. However, the same was assailed before this Court in the proceeding in WP(C)/5977/2021 and this Court had directed for