Remanded

Toyobur Rahman v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Dec 2020WP(C)/3510/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court addressed a petition regarding the rejection of a compassionate appointment claim. The court held that subsequent qualifications must be taken into account and remanded the matter to the District Level Committee to consider the petitioner against any suitable vacant post qualified at the time of application.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to the DLC of Karimganj to consider the claim against any suitable vacant post the petitioner was qualified for at the time of application.

Toyobur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010118782020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3510/2020

¶5

TOYOBUR RAHMAN

¶6

S/O- LT. ABDUL LATIF, VILL- GHULCHERRA, P.O. GHULCHERRA, P.S. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN- 788710

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-06

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710 4:THE DY. INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS KARIMGANJ ASSAM DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710 5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ CUM THE CHAIRMAN

¶10

Page No.# 2/3

¶11

DIST. LEVEL COMMITTEE KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 78871

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS R BEGUM

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 09-12-2020

¶17

Heard Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deuri, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and Mr. N.J. Khatuniar, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4.

¶18

The father of the petitioner who served as a teacher in the 1107 No. North Rupargul L.P. School, Karimganj district died in harness on 11.12.2010. On his death, the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment on 09.11.2011. The said application was considered by the DLC of Karimganj district in its meeting held on 16.06.2020. As per the minutes of the meeting dated 16.06.2020 the claim of the petitioner stood rejected for the reason that at the time of making application, he had the qualification of HSLC, and therefore, he was not qualified for the post of teacher. The reason given by the DLC is otherwise acceptable. But at the same time, as it is a matter of considering an application for compassionate appointment, if the petitioner did not have the qualification at the relevant point of time for the post of teacher of the school, therefore, there may be a possibility that the petitioner could have been qualified for some other post.

¶19

The law requires that the compassionate appointment is to be considered against any suitable vacant post to which the person concerned may be qualified. As it is not a situation where the person claiming compassionate appointment would be considered only against the post which may be relatable to the post which the deceased had earlier held.

¶20

From the said point of view, we are unable to accept the reason of the DLC, Karimganj district in its meeting dated 16.06.2020 to reject the claim of the petitioner that as he was not qualified for the post of teacher when the application was made, therefore, he cannot be recommended for the post of

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

teacher.

¶23

It is stated that in the meantime, the petitioner had completed the HSSLC as well as Graduation examinations.

¶24

In our view, the subsequent obtaining of the qualification cannot change the position that the subsequent qualifications would now have to be taken into account for determining the qualification for considering the application for compassionate appointment and in doing so the qualification as was available on the date of the application would be the relevant consideration.

¶25

Be that as it may, as the petitioner was not considered for any vacant post to which he was qualified at the relevant point of time, we remand the matter back to the DLC of Karimganj to be placed in its next meeting to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment against any suitable post to which he was qualified at the time when the application was made and upon such consideration to pass a reasoned order thereof.

¶26

Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Toyobur Rahman v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Toyobur Rahman v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmala Devi Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Nandeswar Roy and 6 Ors. Vs Maninder Singh and 2 Ors.

Roheswar Mohan Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Ashraful Alom Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Mandira Dhar Vs Preetom Saikia and 2 Ors.

Mokib Md. Minhazul Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.