Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 87
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Abu Ansar Azad, S/o. Late Noor Ali - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam – Respondent
WP(C) No.6506 of 2025
Decided On : 22-01-2026
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Compassionate Appointment
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Compassionate Appointment - The executive standard operating procedure creates a necessary framework ensuring uniform processes while recognizing judicial pronouncements, thus maintaining a rational basis for classification and timelines. (Paras 6, 8, 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the executive order that categorizes compassionate appointment cases and sets a cut-off date, arguing it undermines earlier judicial orders which directed consideration of their applications. (Paras 3, 6)
Findings of Court:
The executive order is valid, seeks uniformity, and adheres to judicial directives; fixing cut-off dates for administrative efficiency does not contravene law. (Paras 10, 14)
Issues: Whether the executive order supersedes judicial orders and the legitimacy of the cut-off date in the context of compassionate appointments. (Paras 2, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the executive cannot nullify binding judicial directions but can issue standardized procedures, and the cut-off date is justified unless proven arbitrary. (Paras 11, 14)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
For the Petitioner:Ms. S.B. Choudhury, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Adv.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the petition and legal challenge (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding conformity to judicial orders (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. analysis of the executive order and its implications (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. judicial review principles and classification rationality (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. clarification of judicial orders and their scope (Para 12) |
| 6. dismissal of writ petition and conclusion (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Heard Ms. S. B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.
2. By way of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have put to challenged the impugned Executive Order dated 30.08.2025, issued by the respondent No. 2, so far as Column B(ii) is concerned, primarily on the ground that the said executive stipulation allegedly supersedes and overrides judicial orders and therefore, is bad in law.
3. Ms. S. B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that after the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the co-ordinate bench of this court in Abdul Kadir Bokshi vs The State of Assam and 4 Ors. in WP(C) No. 342/2025, another order was passed by this court in Abul Kalam Azad Vs. The State of Assam and Ors. in WP(C) No. 2888/2025, directing consideration of petitioners case for compassionate appointment and hence, any cut-off date under Column B(ii) of the executive order is arbitrary and unenforceable.
4. Per contra, Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents, submits that the executive order is a policy decision framed for bringing uniformity and consistent decision making by the competent authorities in view of judicial pronouncements, including of the Apex Court and this court, and therefore, no interference is called for.
5. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, it is apparent that the government has issued a standard operating procedure for disposal of compassionate appointment cases which, inter-alia, makes categorization of cases and prescribes a uniform mechanism for consideration, which reads as under:
Cases, Guidelines & Judgments and Timelines for disposal
| A | B | C | D |
| Types of cases | Guidelines of State Government and Judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble Gauhati High Court applicable for disposal of such cases | Time frame for disposal | |
| i) | All documents/inform ation received in respect of cases of compassionate appointment from the petitioners who have challenged the Office Memorandum No. ABP. 104/2024/90 dated 18.09.2024, including those similar cases which have been disposed of by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court citing the judgment and order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 342/2025, pursuant to the Notice dated 30.08.2025 issued by the Personnel Department and subsequently forwarded by the Personnel Department to the respective DLCs/SLCs, shall be considered and disposed of by the concerned DLCs/SLCs on merit by taking into consideration the criteria specified in Para 4 of this standard operating procedure and guidelines and judgments as mentioned in Column C & D of this clause. | a) O.M. No. ABP.50/2006/ Pt-182 dated 01.06.2015. b) Para 7 of the Order dated 03.08.2006 in WP(C) No. 3875/2005 (Achyut Ranjan Das Vs. SOA & Ors.) c) State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others (Civil Appeal No. 8842- 8855/2022) | For DLC/SLC within 1 (one) Month from the date of receipt of the proposal from Personnel Department & for SLC within 1 (one) Month from the date of receipt of such proposal with recommendat ion from DLC |
| ii) | Applications/cases pending before DLCs/SLCs wherein OM No. ABP. 104/2024/90 dated 18.09.2024 has not been put to challenge before Hon’ble Gauhati High court as on 03.04.2025 but after 03.04.2025 sh |
