Compassionate appointment is meant for immediate relief to bereaved families and cannot be claimed after significant delays, as established by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging, inter alia the non-consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that her husband, Dwijen Ch. Nath, who was working as a Grade-IV employee of Daulasal High School in the district of Nalbari and had died in harness on 21.12.2001. The petitioner claims to be eligible had applied for appointment on compassionate ground and such application was forwarded by the Inspector of School, Nalbari on 07.02.2002. Thereafter, the matter was forwarded to the Education Department on 07.05.2002 in spite of which, no appointment has been made on compassionate ground. It is this action, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

3. I have heard Shri S. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. NM Sarma, 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. The learned counsel has also referred to a letter dated 09.07.2002 issued by the Department to the Inspector of School, Nalbari to furnish a detail report on compassionate appointment within the 5% reservation. The petitioner also claims to have submitted an application on 14.03.2012 to the Hon’ble Minister of the Department whereafter, on 26.12.2012, the Department had requested the Inspector of Schools to take action as per the guidelines. A similar request was made on 16.03.2023 by the Principal Private Secretary of the Hon’ble Chief Minister to the Education Department.

5. Per contra, Ms. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department has submitted that the pleadings are vague which shows complete lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioner as no details of any proceeding of the District Level Committee (DLC) or State Level Committee (SLC) have been referred to. She has also 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 reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219 .

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

7. On perusal of the writ petition, this Court finds sufficient force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition lacks in disclosure of the relevant facts, namely, as to when the matter of the petitioner was taken up for consideration by the DLC and thereafter, by the SLC, if at all the same was taken up. Certain vague statements have been made regarding forwarding of the application by the Principal Private Secretary to the Hon’ble Chief Minster, Assam. This Court has also noticed that in paragraph 7 a claim for compassionate appointment for the elder son of the petitioner has also been raised.

8. There is another aspect of the matter which is very important in the adjudication of the present claim. As per the projected case, the death of the husband of the petitioner was on 21.12.2001 and the writ petition has been instituted in the year 2025 i.e. after almost 2