Remanded

Hitesh Kumar Nath v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Jun 2022WP(C)/1031/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed the petitioner's complaint regarding the rejection of his compassionate appointment as less matrix. It asked the petitioner to apply in other departments with available vacant posts and directed the District Level Committee to reconsider the application in light of vacancies and new information regarding the petitioner's financial status.

What did the court decide?

Remanded the matter back to the DLC of Udalguri district to consider the claim for compassionate appointment against any available vacant posts in any other department.

Hitesh Kumar Nath Vs the State of Assam and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010017112022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1031/2022

¶5

HITESH KUMAR NATH S/O LATE JIBAN CHANDRA DEKA P/R VILL- KABAICHUBA P.O. BORDOULGURI P.S. SIPAJHAR DIST. UDALGURI, PIN-784145

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

¶8

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPTT. DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶9

2:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS UDALGURI CIRCLE DIST. DARRANG ASSAM 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE UDALGURI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM

¶10

4:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE TO THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS K DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

02.06.2022

¶16

Heard Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents No 1 and 2 being the authorities in the Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam, and Ms. D.D. Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents No. 3 and 4 respectively being the Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri and Chief Secretary of the State of Assam.

¶17

The father of the petitioner Jiban Chandra Deka, who was working as a Grade IV employee in the Danda Saharia Higher Secondary School in the district of Udalguri, died in harness on 17.03.2012 and on his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 26.04.2012. The said application of the petitioner was placed before the DLC of Udalguri district in its meeting of 07.12.2012, but the claim of the petitioner was rejected by providing ‘less matrix’.

¶18

By our earlier order dated 18.02.2022, we required the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the DLC of Udalguri to inform the Court as to what exactly is meant by the expression ‘less matrix’.

¶19

Ms. D.D. Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, after obtaining the necessary information states that in order to evaluate the inter-se financial comparison, marks are allotted by the DLC to various parameters and a more worse off candidate is given more marks against each of the parameters. In such evaluation, the petitioner got lesser marks than the other applicants and therefore, he was not recommended. It is also stated that in the application

¶20

Page No.# 3/3

¶21

form of the petitioner, certain columns pertaining to the financial position of the petitioner were not duly filled up.

¶22

Considering both the aspects that the petitioner was evaluated as less matrix and further necessary information was not provided by the petitioner as required, a view can be formed that the claim of the petitioner was not appropriately considered by the DLC. It can also be construed that the application of the petitioner was rejected as because whatever available vacancies were there, have been recommended in favour of other more suitable candidates and therefore, it can be a case of there being no further vacancies for the petitioner.

¶23

Considering all the aspects, the petitioner also has a legal right to be considered against any available vacant posts in any other department as per Clause- 1.5 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015.

¶24

In view of the above, we remand the matter back to the DLC of Udalguri district to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in any other vacant posts in any department for which the petitioner may have the necessary qualifications. Accordingly, the matter be now placed before the next available DLC of Udalguri district. To facilitate the process, the petitioner may also provide all the necessary information pertaining to his financial status.

¶25

The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above.

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Hitesh Kumar Nath v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hitesh Kumar Nath v. the State of Assam and 3 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

Maneswar Kalita Vs P. Jidung and 2 Ors.

Sheela Jabarraj Kumbhat Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Mojibur Rahman Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Rahmat Ali Sheikh Vs Mofidul Islam Talukdar and 6 Ors.

Shri Hafizur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Jyotsna K Biswal Rout Vs the Gauhati University and 2 Ors.