Compassionate appointment is not a right and must be pursued immediately after a financial crisis due to the death of the breadwinner; delays undermine the purpose of such provisions.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.A. Mazumder, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. R. Dhar, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5.

2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned Minutes dated 11.02.2022 and the extended sitting held on 16.03.2022 whereby the District Level Committee rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

3. This Court has duly perused Minutes of the District Level Committee Meeting for appointment on compassionate basis held on 11.02.2022 and 16.03.2022 which is impugned in the instant proceedings and the reason why the petitioner's application was rejected was that the petitioner's father had less than three years balance service at the time of his death which is in terms with paragraph No.1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that this Court vide the judgment and order dated 30.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No.1646/2021 struck down the Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. The learned counsel further submitted that the said judgment was challenged before the learned Division Bench of this Court by the State of Assam. The learned Division Bench of this Court vide the judgment and order dated 12.12.2025 in WA No.287/2023 had affirmed the judgment passed by this Court and further passed certain directions thereby directing the Respondent Authorities to reconsider the case of the respondents therein with an observation that such private respondents must not entertain any false hope that the concerned authorities shall consider the passage of time aspect seriously while assessing the suitability of the private respondents for compassionate appointment.

5. This Court has duly taken note of the materials on record and from the materials on record it is seen that the petitioner's father expired on 05.11.2016 leaving behind his wife; two daughters (the petitioner herein is the eldest daughter) and one son. The petitioner submitted her application on 09.02.2017 and the same was rejected vide the impugned Minutes.

6. The law is well settled as regards the compassionate appointment. It is no longer res integra that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment. The appointment on compassionate basis is made on the basis of a policy of the State to provide immediate succour to the bereaved family upon the death of the sole bread earner of the family. Therefore, appointment on compassionate basis being an exception to Article 16 of the Constitution, it has to be strictly in terms with the mandate of the policy of the Government. It is also well settled that such policy of the Government to grant appointment on compassionate basis does not confer any right. In this regard, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari , (2025) 5 SCC 712 wherein the various parameters have been duly laid down. Paragraph Nos.32 and 33 of the said judgment being relevant are reproduced hereinunder:

“32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge:

32.1. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives i.e. to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.

32.2. Appointment on