Compassionate appointment claims must be pursued without undue delay, as significant lags undermine the objective of immediate relief for bereaved families.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. Both these writ petitions have been instituted by the same petitioner engaging different counsel. It is, however, pertinent to be mentioned that in the second writ petition, i.e, WP(C)/3115/2025, there is not even a whisper of the filing and pendency of the earlier writ petition, WP(C)/5588/2023. The subject matter involves a claim for appointment on compassionate ground.

2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that his father, Abdul Rakib Mazumdar, who was working as a Hindi Teacher of Hussain Ahmed (Provincialized) MEM School under the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Hailakandi had died in harness on 01.08.2009. The petitioner who claims to be eligible had applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 02.12.2009. However, the District Level Committee (DLC), Hailakandi had rejected the claim of the petitioner in its meeting dated 05.10.2021 whereafter, the petitioner had filed WP(C)/184/2022. The said writ petition was disposed of vide an order dated 11.01.2022, remanding the matter to the DLC to give a fresh consideration to the application of the petitioner as per law. However, after such remand, the DLC in its meeting held on 07.05.2022, had again rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner had filed a first WP(C)/5588/2023 in which notice was issued on 27.09.2023.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner, through a different counsel, filed another writ petition, WP(C)/3115/2025 on 29.05.2025. However, as noted above, there is no disclosure of either the filing or pendency of the earlier writ petition, WP(C)/5588/2023.

4. I have heard Shri N. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/5588/2023 and Shri AM Barbhuiya, learned counsel in WP(C)/3115/2025. I have also heard Ms. S. Konwar, learned State Counsel and Ms. S. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department.

5. Shri Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the first writ petition, the DLC had recommended the case of the petitioner on 19.09.2023. in view of this, he submits that the same has become infructuous and should be dismissed accordingly.

6. Shri Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the second writ petition had to be filed inasmuch as, after the recommendation of the name of the petitioner by the DLC on 19.09.2023, a notification dated 18.09.2024 has been issued abolishing the Scheme of appointment on compassionate ground in the State. He has contended that once the DLC had recommended the name of the petitioner, the Scheme could not have been discontinued.

7. Per contra, both Ms. S. Konwar, learned State Counsel and Ms. S. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department have submitted that the claim of the petitioner is untenable in law inasmuch as, there has been a considerable lapse of time since the death of a government servant and therefore, no direction for appointment on compassionate ground can be made at this juncture. The Departmental Counsel has submitted 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. They have also raised the issue of suppression of material facts.

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

9. The materials on record make it clear that the death of the father of the petitioner was on 01.08.2009 and the petitioner claimed to have applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 02.12.2009. However, the consideration a