Disposed

Murshida Yeasmin Laskar v. Sri H. N. Gautam

Gauhati HC2 Nov 2022Cont.Cas(C)/558/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition arose from a failure to act on the Gauhati High Court's earlier order directing the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi, to consider a petitioner for compassionate appointment. The court directed the Deputy Commissioner to place the petitioner's case before the next immediate District Level Committee sitting. The contempt petition was subsequently disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi, to put up the petitioner's case before the next immediate sitting of the DLC within two months.

Murshida Yeasmin Laskar Vs Sri H. N. Gautam — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010197932022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/558/2022

¶5

MURSHIDA YEASMIN LASKAR

¶6

D/O- LATE HABIBUR RAHMAN LASKAR, VILL.- RANGAUTI PART-II, P.O. RANGAUTI, P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SRI H. N. GAUTAM

¶9

THE CHIARMAN, DLC, HAILAKANDI CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAILAKANDI, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN- 788151.

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 02.11.2022

¶15

Heard Mr. A.M.Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner that her father while working as Assamese Language Teacher at Bashbari M.E. School, Hailakandi, died-in-harness on 30.05.2013. Thereafter, petitioner made an application praying for appointment

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

on compassionate grounds on 21.04.2014. Petitioner’s case was considered by the concerned District Level Committee in its meeting held on 05.10.2021 and was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had no requisite qualification at the time when she applied for the compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6383/2021 which was disposed of by judgment and order dated 27.04.2022 and the relevant portion reads as under:

¶19

“9. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents and more particularly, to the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 which categorically mentions that the educational qualification cannot be relaxed and the petitioner admittedly does not have the educational qualification for being appointed as LP School Teacher, this Court is therefore of the opinion and accordingly directs the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi, who is the Chairman of the DLC for appointment, to place the application of the petitioner for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground to any post to which the petitioner is qualified as per her educational qualification. It is clarified that the concerned respondent authority have to take into consideration the petitioner’s qualification as on the date when the petitioner’s application is considered and not as per the date on which the petitioner had submitted the application. The respondent No.4 is directed to place the application of the petitioner in the next available DLC meeting for appointment pursuant to submitting the certified copy of this order to the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi.

¶20

With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.”

¶21

Consequent to the order dated 27.04.2021, passed by this Court in WP(C)/6383/2021, petitioner submitted the said judgment and order before the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi on 06.05.2022. Thereafter, on 07.05.2022, the District Level Committee held it meeting, however, the case of the petitioner was not put up.

¶22

Considering the matter in its whole entirety, this contempt petition is

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

disposed of, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi to put up the case of the petitioner before the next immediate sitting of the DLC within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court.

¶25

With the above directions, the contempt petition is disposed of.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Murshida Yeasmin Laskar v. Sri H. N. Gautam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murshida Yeasmin Laskar v. Sri H. N. Gautam

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

Nurul Haque Barbhuiya and 16 Ors. Vs Keerthi Jalli, I.A.S. and Ors.

Anchen Taflap Vs Marge Sora

Jyoti Changami Vs Paban Kumar Barthakur and 5 Ors.

Dintara Devi Vs Gyanendra Dev Tripathi and Anr.

Miss. Aklima Khatun Vs Udayan Hazarika and 3 Ors.

Devananda Naohalia @ Debendu Naohalia and 2 Ors. Vs Preetom Saikia

Harendra Basumatary Vs Anurag Goel, I.A.S. and 2 Ors.

Ambar Ali Vs Avinash Joshi

Rina Begum Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Balicherra M E Madrassa Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Md. Zakir Hussain Vs the Registrar, Gauhati University and Anr.

Mularam Narzary Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Shamsun Nahar Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Indeswar Deka Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.