IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointments must be made promptly to address financial crises, and undue delays can render claims stale and unentitled.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

None appears for the petitioner, on call. However, Mr. Dilip Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, are present on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to the speaking order, dated 24.04.2017, along with a challenge to the decision arrived at by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 27.11.2015, towards rejecting the case of the petitioner, herein, for appointment on compassionate ground.

3. As projected in the writ petition, the father of the petitioner Late Safikur Rahman, while working as a Grade-IV employee in the North Lakhimpur Civil Hospital, under the Joint Director of Health Services, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, had died-in-harness on 20.06.2012. The petitioner in pursuance of the death of his father in harness, submitted an application on 03.08.2012, praying for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The application of the petitioner was considered by the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 16.03.2013. The jurisdictional District Level Committee on consideration of the application of the petitioner, proceeded to recommend his case for appointment on compassionate ground.

4. Accordingly, the recommendations so made in favour of the petitioner, herein, came to be placed before the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 27.11.2015. The State Level Committee in its meeting held on 27.11.2015, on consideration of the same, proceeded to reject the case of the petitioner on the ground of non-availability of further vacancy and also by holding that 2 years having elapsed since the date of submission of the application by the petitioner, herein, for appointment on compassionate ground; the same must be held to have lost its force.

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

6. As noticed hereinabove, the father of the petitioner had died-in- harness on 20.06.2012. Although the case of the petitioner was recommended by the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 16.03.2013, for appointment on compassionate ground; the said application of the petitioner was belatedly placed before the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 27.11.2015. The State Level Committee having considered the application of the petitioner, had rejected the same along with other similarly situated persons on the ground that there was no further vacancy available for accommodation of the petitioner and further, that the application as submitted by him, had lost its force on lapse of 2 years from the date of preferring of such application.

7. At this stage, it is required to be noticed that this Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das & ors. v. State of Assam & ors., reported in 2006(4) GLT 674 , while laying down the principles required to be followed for consideration of claims relating to compassionate appointment had laid down that if the application of eligible candidates remained pending and cannot be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of 2(two) years from the date of making of such application, all such applications would require no further consideration. The State Level Committee following the principles laid down in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra), had rejected the case of the petitioner when the same was placed before it, in its meeting held on 27.11.2015, inter alia, on the ground that the application of the petitioner had lost its force after 2(two) years from the date of it was so preferred. The said prescription as made in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra), was reiterated by this Court in the case of Fozirul Nessa & or