Compassionate appointments are an exception for immediate support to bereaved families, not a vested right, and must be considered without undue delay to fulfill their intended purpose.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging, inter alia the rejection of the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that her father, Horendra Nath Gogoi, who was working as Assistant Teacher at Rampur MV School in the district of Lakhimpur and had died in harness on 19.04.2016. The petitioner, who claims to be eligible, had applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 20.06.2016. However, the District Level Committee (DLC), Lakhimpur was not considering the same and was deferring such consideration. The petitioner claims that she had again approached the DEEO, Lakhimpur and was informed that her application was not traceable.

3. I have heard Shri S.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri B. Deuri, learned State Counsel and Shri B. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the non- consideration of the candidature of the petitioner is unreasonable and arbitrary. It is contended that the application for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner within the prescribed time and the same was also duly forwarded by the concerned authorities. He has also submitted that the petitioner was eligible for such appointment in all respects and therefore, a due consideration ought to have been made. He has also informed that earlier, the writ petition was heard and dismissed vide an order dated 13.12.2022. However, Review Petition No. 44/2023 was filed which was allowed on 30.05.2025 and accordingly, the matter has come up for consideration.

5. Per contra, Shri Deuri, learned State Counsel has highlighted the aspect of delay in approaching the Court and also the aspect of the claim for any such direction in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari , (2023) SCC Online SC 219 .

6. Shri Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel of the Department has endorsed the submission of the learned State Counsel and has further submitted that more than 9 years have passed since the death of the government servant and therefore, the scheme of appointment on compassionate ground will not be applicable.

7. The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.

8. The materials on record make it clear that the death of the father of the petitioner was on 19.04.2016 and the application claims to be made on 20.06.2016. Though it has been projected that there was no consideration by the DLC, the pleadings are absolutely vague. No details whatsoever have been given in the writ petition regarding the dates when the DLC meeting was held and a bald statement has been made that such consideration could not be done as her application was not traceable. The averments made in paragraph 3 have been verified in the accompanying affidavit as being matters of record. However, no documents have been annexed to substantiate the said statement. In a writ proceeding where there is no avenue for adducing evidence by witnesses, it is the affidavit accompanying the writ petition which attains paramount importance pertaining to the aspect of proof and therefore, such affidavit is sacrosanct and has to be executed with utmost care and due diligence.

9. This Court has also noticed that though certain details were observed by this Court in the order dated 13.12.2022 and 30