IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointments are exceptions to standard recruitment processes and must be made promptly; delays can render claims stale and unmeritorious.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Dilip Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to the decision arrived at by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 19.12.2015, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in any Grade-IV vacant post in the Department concerned.

3. As projected in the writ petition, the father of the petitioner Late Dharmeswar Das, while working as a Forest Guard in the establishment of the Divisional Forest Officer, Sonitpur West Division, Tezpur, had died-in- harness on 24.11.2010. The petitioner in pursuance of the death of his father in harness, submitted an application on 16.03.2011, praying for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The case of the petitioner was considered by the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 18.02.2012, wherein, the case of the petitioner came to be recommended against an identified Grade-IV post in the establishment of the Divisional Forest Officer, Sonitpur West Division, Tezpur.

4. It is also projected in the writ petition that the case of the petitioner not being further considered and placed before the State Level Committee, he had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition before this Court being WP(c)4245/2015. This Court, vide order, dated 12.02.2020, on noticing that the State Level Committee had already considered the case of the petitioner and rejected his case for appointment on compassionate ground; disposed of the said writ petition as having become infructuous. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the Minutes of the State Level Committee, if so advised.

5. The State Level Committee had considered the case of the petitioner in its meeting held on 01.04.2015. Thereafter, on such consideration, the State Level Committee by noticing the time that has elapsed since the death of the government servant; proceeded to hold that the case of the petitioner would not mandate consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. Further, the application of the petitioner was also held to have spent its force.

6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding before this Court.

7. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner, has reiterated the facts as noticed hereinabove and has submitted that the delay so occasioning in consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is solely attributable to the respondent authorities and the petitioner, herein, is in no way responsible for such delay.

8. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel, has further submitted that the grounds on which the case of the petitioner was rejected by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 01.04.2015, would not merit an acceptance in-as-much as there were vacant posts available for consideration of the case of the petitioner and it was reiterated that the delay so occasioning in considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground not being attributable to the petitioner, herein; the decision as arrived at by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 19.12.2015, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in any Grade-IV vacant post in the Department concerned, would require an interference from this Court.

9. In the above premises, Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, would now be required to be directed to be placed before the State Level Comm