Remanded

Biswajit Talukdar v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Mar 2019WP(C)/2030/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's die-in-harness appointment application. The Selection Level Committee wrongly rejected the case by treating it as pre-2010. The court found force in the submission, held the rejection illegal, and remanded for reconsideration based on post-2010 vacancies.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition remanded to the Selection Level Committee for reconsideration of the application considering vacancy position from 2010 onwards and to issue a speaking order.

Biswajit Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010064782018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

¶5

1:BISWAJIT TALUKDAR

¶6

S/O- LATE KAILASH TALUKDAR, R/O- USHA NAGAR, P.O- TEZPUR, UNDER TEZPUR POLICE STATION, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784001

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM CUM CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND, STATE OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI781006

¶10

2:ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 3:ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT DISPUR GHY- 06

¶11

4:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPTT DISPUR GHY- 06

¶12

5:DIRECTOR

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY ASSAM CHENIKUTHI GHY- 03

¶15

6:DIRECTOR DAIRY DEVELOPMENT ASSAM KHANAPARA GUWAHATI- 22

¶16

7:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SONITPUR DISTRICT CUM CHAIRMAN DIST LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND SONITPUR DISTRICT ASSAM- 784001

¶17

8:DEPUTY DIRECTOR DAIRY DEVELOPMENT TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSAM- 78400

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K SARMA

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶20

BEFORE

¶21

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶22

14.03.2019

¶23

Heard Mr. K Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Nath, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 8 and Mr. P Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Finance for respondent No.3.

¶24

The matter pertains to appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. The petitioner’s father died on 28.1.2010 while he was working in a regular and sanctioned Grade IV post in

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

the office of the Deputy Director, Dairy Development, Tezpur, Sonitpur, Assam. Thereafter, petitioner submitted application for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. The said application of the petitioner was considered by the District Level Committee (DLC) on 19.3.2010 recommending the petitioner for appointment by indicating the vacancy position.

¶27

However, when the matter was considered by the SLC on 30.12.2015, the petitioner’s case was rejected on the ground of lack of vacancy. However, in the proceeding of the SLC, it has been recorded as follows;

¶28

“The SLC discussed all the above 27 nos. of pending proposals of the meeting dated 16-11-2010. As there is no vacancy as per Roster Register and those applications are for 2000 to 2007, the committee rejected the proposal.”

¶29

The grievance of the petitioner is that the SLC had not considered the case of the petitioner by assuming that his case was prior to 2010 for which the DLC made recommendation by showing the vacancy position and as such, rejection by the SLC on the ground that applications are for 2000-2007, is illegal as his case ought to have been considered for the year 2010 and onwards.

¶30

This Court finds force in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the SLC had wrongly rejected the case of the petitioner by clubbing the petitioner’s application with the earlier applications pertaining to the year 2002-2007.

¶31

In that view of the matter, the matter is remanded to the SLC for reconsideration of the application of the petitioner for appointment in terms of the recommendation made by DLC by considering the vacancy position from 2010 onwards, which exercise shall be undertaken in the next meeting of the SLC and intimate the result of the same to the petitioner by issuing a speaking order.

¶32

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Biswajit Talukdar v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biswajit Talukdar v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyamali Sarkar Vs Biren Bhattacharyya and 2 Ors.

Jayanta Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mahesh Barkataki Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Latumoni Das and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ila Choudhury and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Diganta Madhab Borah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.