Compassionate appointments must be pursued promptly post-demise of the sole breadwinner; significant delays negate entitlement as the purpose of the remedy is undermined.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. By invoking the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has instituted the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for placing the case of the petitioner before the State Level Committee [SLC] in pursuance of the recommendation dated 06.12.2012 made by the District Level Committee [DLC] in respect of an application the petitioner had submitted seeking his appointment on compassionate ground.

2. The father of the petitioner, Baliram Rongpi was serving as a Forest Guard in the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Sonitpur East Division, Biswanath Chariali and on 26.08.2009, he died-in-harness, after serving in the department for the period of twenty-two years, ten months and sixteen days. After the death of his father, the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent authorities in the Environment & Forest Department for consideration of his case on appointment on compassionate ground in a Grade-III post reserved for Scheduled Tribes [Plains]. After scrutiny of the application, the same was forwarded to the District Level Committee [DLC].

3. The DLC in its Meeting, held on 06.12.2012, examined and recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment in a Grade-III post in the establishment of the respondent no. 4. The proposal along with the recommendation of the DLC was forwarded in 2016 for placement before the State Level Committee [SLC] for Compassionate Appointment. Due to certain reasons not attributable to the petitioner, the proposal of the petitioner’s compassionate appointment was finally placed before the SLC only in the year 2019. A number of names were forwarded to the SLC for appointment in the Environment & Forest Department and in the establishment of the respondent no. 4 and the petitioner’s name was amongst the persons whose cases were considered by the SLC. It is the contention of the petitioner that despite the case of the petitioner ought to have been given preference to others, such preference was not given.

4. I have heard Mr. D.C. Kathhazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. D. Borah, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 & 5; Mr. I. Barthakur, learned Standing Counsel, Environment & Forest Department for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4.

5. Mr. Kathhazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the DLC, Sonitpur had examined and approved the names of five persons for appointment on compassionate ground, in which, the name of the petitioner was mentioned at Serial no. 2. After the recommendation of the DLC made on 06.12.2012, when the case of the petitioner was forwarded for consideration of the SLC along with others, due to reasons not attributable to the petitioner and apparently attributable to the respondent authorities, the case of the petitioner was not considered by the SLC for a number of years. The petitioner came to learn about these vital facts when he sought the necessary information through applications filed under the Right to Information [RTI] Act in the year 2020. The State Public Information Officer [SPIO] vide an Office Letter dated 28.01.2021 directed the respondent no. 4 to provide the information. But, the application of the petitioner under RTI Act had been kept pending in the office of the respondent no. 4 without any justifiable ground and as a result, the name of the petitioner has been left to be considered by the SLC. On the other hand, the cases of other persons, whose cases were less meritorious than the petitioner’s, were considered by the SLC.

6. In response, Mr. Barthakur, learned Stan