Back
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J
JITU TAPAN DAS - Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM and 7 ORS - Respondent
WP(C) 2551 / 2015
Decided On : 30-01-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Compassionate appointment - Petition for appointment on compassionate grounds rejected due to lack of vacancy and significant delay since the death of the petitioner's father - The Supreme Court's principles on compassionate appointments emphasize that it is an exception meant for immediate relief, not a vested right - The petitioner's case was not considered due to the passage of over 12 years since the death of the government servant. (Paras 11 , 12 , 15 )
(B) Delay in application - The court highlighted that prolonged delay dilutes the sense of immediacy required for compassionate appointments, as established in the case of Debabrata Tiwari. (Paras 12 , 15 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner's father died on 26.01.2012 while in service, and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. Initial recommendations were made, but the case was ultimately rejected in favor of another candidate due to lack of vacancy and delay. (Paras 2 , 10 )
Findings of Court:
The court found that the reasons for rejection were valid and relevant, and there was no challenge to the appointment of the other candidate. (Paras 10 , 16 )
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the reasons for rejecting the petitioner's application and the implications of the delay in seeking compassionate appointment. (Paras 5 , 11 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that compassionate appointments are not vested rights and must be considered promptly to address immediate financial crises. Delay undermines the purpose of such appointments, as established by the Supreme Court. (Paras 12 , 15 )
Result: The writ petition stands dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a claim for appointment on compassionate ground.
2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that his father, Lalit Chandra Das, who was working as Grade-IV in the Raidongia H. Saikia H.S. School in the district of Nagaon had died in harness on 26.01.2012. The petitioner who claims to be eligible had applied for appointment on compassionate ground and the District Level Committee (DLC) vide meeting held on 09.08.2012 had recommended the case of the petitioner. In the said meeting however, the candidature of the respondent no. 8 was rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that the DLC had another meeting on 23.04.2013 in which however, the claim of the petitioner was rejected while that of the respondent no. 8 was recommended. Be that as it may, it appears that both the minutes were taken into consideration by the State Level Committee (SLC) on 26.08.2014 in which the case of the respondent no. 8 was recommended.
3. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition was instituted. It may however be mentioned that at the time of filing of the writ petition, the respondent no. 8 was not made a party respondent and in the meantime, she was appointed. Subsequently, I.A.(C)/549/2017 was filed for impleadment which was allowed by this Court on 07.04.2017.
4. I have heard Shri M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri JK Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, Shri PN Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department and Shri S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned decision is not supported by any justifiable grounds or reasons, no reasons were assigned as to why the DLC had adopted another Resolution on 23.04.2013 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner despite the earlier Resolution dated 09.08.2012 his candidature was recommended. It is also submitted that the recommendation of the SLC in favour of the respondent no. 8 by ignoring the candidature of the petitioner is also not backed by any reasons which would appeal to a prudent man. He submits that once the candidature of the petitioner was recommended by the DLC, it was incumbent upon the SLC to consider the case of the petitioner in the proper perspective.
6. Per contra, Shri Goswami, learned State Counsel has, at the outset, submitted that as on date, there is no provision for appointment on compassionate ground and in this regard he has placed before this Court Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024. He accordingly contends that the writ petition itself has become infructuous. He otherwise contends that the reasons cited for rejecting the case of the petitioner are relevant and germane and therefore, the submission that there is illegality cannot be countenanced. He submits that lack of vacancy is a valid ground as the existing vacancies are filled up within the quota amongst large number of aspirants. He further submits 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 in 2012 and in the meantime, more than 12 years have passed and therefore, there is no requirement in law for such consideration. He has also submitted that affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent no. 1 on 17.06.2016. He has relied upon the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219.
7. Shri S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 while endorsing the submission of the learned State Counsel has contended that the appointment of the respondent no. 8 as such is not the subject matter
Compassionate appointments are not vested rights and must be considered promptly to address immediate financial crises; significant delays undermine this purpose.
Compassionate appointments are not vested rights and must be considered promptly to address immediate financial crises; delays diminish the urgency of such claims.
Compassionate appointments are intended for immediate relief and cannot be claimed after significant delays, as the sense of urgency is lost.
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and must be pursued promptly to address immediate financial crises; delays diminish the urgency and relevance of the application.
Compassionate appointments are exceptions to normal recruitment procedures and must be made promptly to address immediate financial crises; delays undermine this objective.
Compassionate appointments are not vested rights and must be considered promptly; significant delays dilute the urgency of financial need.
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 appointme....
Compassionate appointments must be sought immediately after the death of a government employee, as delays negate the intended relief purpose.
Compassionate appointments are exceptions to normal recruitment rules, not vested rights, and must satisfy immediate needs without prolonged delays affecting eligibility.
Compassionate appointment claims must be pursued without undue delay, as significant lags undermine the objective of immediate relief for bereaved families.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
