Allowed

Prabin Bhuyan v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC16 Nov 2021WP(C)/4342/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds, alleging perverse rejection of his claim against a specific vacancy. The single judge quashed the order as it lacked reasons and relied on new grounds of delay not stated in the decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned decision set aside and quashed; petitioner to be considered afresh in the next meeting of the State Level Committee with a speaking order.

Prabin Bhuyan Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010241982015

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4342/2015

¶5

PRABIN BHUYAN

¶6

S/O LT. BANGSHIDHAR BHUYAN R/O VILL- ADI-ALENGI P.O. BALICHAPURI DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶10

2:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETAR CUM SECRETARY AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE

¶12

ASSAM KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-21.

¶13

4:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE

¶14

EASTERN REGION JORHAT ASSAM.

¶15

5:THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER JORHAT

¶16

Page No.# 2/6

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.R BARUAH

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.D GOGOIR-6

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY O R D E R

¶21

16.11.2021

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Standing Counsel for the Agriculture Department, Assam.

¶23

Specific claim of the petitioner is that he has been wrongly rejected by the State Level Committee (SLC) which made on 19.03.2015. Although the vacancy as per District Level Committee Minutes dated 11.09.2013 shows that there was one vacant post for Grade-IV for the vacancy of 2007-2008 the claim of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected.

¶24

According to the petitioner, his father Sri Bangshidhar Bhuyan was working as Grade IV employee under the establishment of District Agriculture Officer, Jorhat against confirmed substantive post. The father of the petitioner expired on 13.02.2005 while he was serving as aforesaid. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner submitted his application for his appointment under compassionate ground as per extent norms of the compassionate appointment.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, the District Level Scrutiny Committee vide its resolution dated 11.09.2003 recommended the name of the petitioner amongst other for appointment on compassionate ground against Grade-IV post. On the basis of such recommendation, the Director of Agriculture, Assam, Kahilipara vide communication dated 20.11.2014

¶26

Page No.# 3/6

¶27

forwarded the same to the Secretary of the Department. It is the case of the petitioner that while considering such appointment, the District Level Committee relied on the vacancy position as meant for and under 5% quota for compassionate appointment. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been recommended against the vacancy of 2007-2008 wherein one vacancy was available for compassionate appointment. The substantiate contention, the petitioner relies upon the annexure documents which is a part of the proceeding of the District Level Committee. Thereafter, vide resolution dated 19.03.2015, the State Level Committee rejected the claim of the petitioner and uphold the case of one Dipak Paswan in the following terms:-

¶28

“The Committee recommended the case of Sri Dipak Pawan, S/O- Late Birina Paswan, Ex-Chowkider for appointment to the post of Grade-IV in the O/O- EE(Agri), Jorhat against the vacant post of 2003.

¶29

The Committee could not recommend the case of Sri Prabin Bhuyan S/O Late Banshidhar Bhuyan, Ex- Peon, Smti Suwala Mili Tahu, W/O – Late Ghanashyam Tahu, Ex- VLEW and Sri Gautam Neog, S/O – Late Dimbeswar Neog, Ex- Chowkider for appointment to the post of Grade-IV due to non admissibility of vacancy (5%) in Grade-IV post as per guidelines issued by the Personnel (B) Department”.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such finding of the State Level Selection Committee is perverse inasmuch the said decision has been taken without application of mind. The learned counsel contents that the same is perverse because admittedly there was a vacancy for the year 2007 and 2008 as reflected in the proceeding of the District Level Committee. The counsel also submits that when there was no vacancy for the year 2003 but said Dipak

¶31

Page No.# 4/6

¶32

Paswan has been recommended against the vacant post arose in the year 2003. Therefore, according to the learned counsel such decision is liable to the struck down same being perverse without any application of mind and without any reason resulting in violation of the petitioners right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as his right under the extent norms and guidelines for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶33

The State respondents. i.e. respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 has filed their affidavit and has taken stand that the case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the District Level Committee has recommended the name of the petitioner after 8 (eight) years from the date of application. Compassionate appointment, accordingly to the leaned counsel for the petitioner cannot be granted after laps of such long years inasmuch object of the appointment of the compassionate appointment has lost its ground so far relating to the petitioner. The affidavit-in-opposition has not replied the reason how its come to a conclusion that there was no vacancy under 5 % quota in Grade-IV even after the recommendation of the District Level Committee was available before it. The State Level Committee is within its jurisdiction and competent to reverse a decision of a District Level Committee but same could not be done only with reasons.

¶34

In the case in hand, the department has only said that there is non admissibility vacancy (5%) in Grade-IV post but has not answered anything about the decision of the District Level Committee showing clear vacancy against which the name of the petitioner has been recommended. The law is well settled that every State action must be supported by reason when it adversely effects right of any citizen and in absence of such reason, the same

¶35

Page No.# 5/6

¶36

will be violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this case, there was no reason what so ever has been given for overruling the recommendation of the District Level Committee by the State Level Committee except a statement that there are dearth of vacancies. Such findings is not tenable more particularly in the given facts of the case that name of the petitioner was specifically recommended against the clear vacancy of 2007-2008.

¶37

The stand taken in the affidavit to the effect that the case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of delay on the part of the District Level Committee who has recommended his name after laps of 8 (eight) years. But such reason are not disernable in the order/ decision of the State Level Committee impugned in the present writ petition. The law is well settled that the State respondents cannot be allowed to give new reason to substantiate their action under challenge beyond the reason given in the order under challange. In this regard we can safely rely the following paragraph as held by the Hon’ble Apex court in Mahindar Singh Gill & Another –Vs- Chief Election Commission reported in 1978 AIR 851 is under:-

¶38

“The Second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, gets validated by additional grounds later brought out”.

¶39

Such ratio is equally applicable to the decision of executive authority. In view of the above, the stand taken by the respondent relating to the delay in the affidavit cannot also sustain.

¶40

Accordingly the impugned decision is hereby set aside and quashed. The

¶41

Page No.# 6/6

¶42

respondent State Level Selection Committee is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, taking note of the forgoing reasons and discussions. The case of the petitioner shall be placed in the next meeting of State Level Committee and a speaking order should be passed in this regard. The petitioner also be intimated of such decision.

¶43

This writ petition is disposed of in the above term. However no order as to cost.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Comparing Assistant

Prabin Bhuyan v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabin Bhuyan v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Prova Chetia and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Smt. Prova Chetia and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dr. Alaul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 12 Ors.

Reba Kanta Mili Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Rewat Ch. Gogoi and 7 Ors. Vs State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Marzina Khatoon Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.