Remanded

Shaydur Islam v. the State Level Committee and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Jun 2022WP(C)/1826/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compassionate appointment following father's death. Court held District Level Committee failed statutory duty by recommending more candidates than available vacancies. State Level Committee correctly refused posts. Petition remanded to DLC for fresh lawful consideration.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of complainant claim interfered; matter remanded to DLC for fresh consideration as per law.

Shaydur Islam Vs the State Level Committee… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010048772022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1826/2022

¶5

SHAYDUR ISLAM

¶6

W/O. LT. TAYEN UDDIN AHMED VILL. SIMULBARI, P.O. KACHUMARA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781302.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE AND 5 ORS REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CHIEF SECRETEARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06

¶9

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT. DISPUR GHY.-06. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

¶10

ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY.-19. 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶11

BARPETA P.O. AND DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301. 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER

¶12

BARPETA

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

P.O. AND DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301. 6:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL BARPETA P.O. AND DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HOSSAIN

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 10-06-2022

¶20

Heard Mr. N. Hossain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Pegu, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 4 respectively being the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam and Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta. Also heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 being the authorities in the Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam. 2. The father of the petitioner Tayen Uddin Ahmed was an Assistant Teacher in the 954 No. Simulbari (Provincialized) Girls L.P. School in the Barpeta District, died in harness on 03.09.2010 and on his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 20.10.2010. The said application was given a consideration by the DLC of Barpeta District in its meeting dated

¶21

Page No.# 3/5

¶22

27.02.2012 and the petitioner was recommended for a post of Assistant Teacher in an LP School. The DLC of Barpeta District evaluated the availability of vacancies in respect of Assistant Teacher in the following manner as extracted below:

¶23

“1.A. T of LP School Nil 1 1 Nil 2 Eligible vacant post of 2 nos. Single Vacancy occurred in the year 2006, 2007

¶24

Nil Nil Nil 109 5% of 109 nos of posts is 5 nos occurred in the year 2011.”

¶25

Having evaluated that there are two vacancies, the DLC recommended in the manner as extracted below:

¶26

“2. Shaydur Islam , Lt. Toyen Uddin Ahmed 3-9-2010

¶27

20/10/2010 Applied within one year, complete in all respects. Dependent 6 nos. Require a job for subsistence. No employment in the family. Suitable for recommendation for the post of Asstt. Teacher in LP School.”

¶28

It is noticed that although the DLC of Barpeta District had evaluated there were two vacancies available for Assistant Teacher in an LP School, at least seven recommendations were made for compassionate appointment as Assistant Teacher in an LP School.

¶29

Fundamentally, we are of the view that the DLC through the Deputy Commissioner had not done its required duty under the law. The primary duty of the DLC is to evaluate the number of vacancies available, then examine and make an inter se financial comparison of all the applicants and whosoever are financially found to be worse off, recommend exactly the same number as that of the available vacancies. When two the vacancies were evaluated and seven recommendations were made, we are of the view that the DLC of Barpeta District through the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta had not

¶30

Page No.# 4/5

¶31

done the duty entrusted by it by law. In the resultant situation, when the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner was placed before the SLC in its meeting of 01.04.2014, it stood rejected amongst others, by providing that vacancies were not available. The SLC cannot be faulted inasmuch as, apparently at least seven persons were recommended against two available vacant posts and therefore, the SLC was bound to take a call that at least five out of them would be rejected for unavailability of vacancies. All these chaos had resulted because of the DLC through the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta not doing its duty entrusted under law.

¶32

In other words, we have to accept that because of an illegality by the DLC, the petitioner is deprived from an appropriate consideration under the law. Further, there was also requirement on the part of the DLC to examine the claim of the petitioner against any other vacant posts that may have been available in any other department, although, the said proposition may have been provided in the O.M. dated 01.06.2015, which may be subsequent.

¶33

In view of the above, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the SLC it is meeting of 01.04.2014, is interfered and the matter is remanded back to the DLC of Barpeta District for a fresh consideration as per law and the DLC is required to discharge its functions strictly in terms of the requirement of the law and not as per its own wishes and arbitrary method to be adopted and we also require the DLC to actually perform their work rather than doing it in a perfunctory manner which ultimately leads to a violation of the legal rights of the applicants.

¶34

Page No.# 5/5

¶35

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above manner.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Shaydur Islam v. the State Level Committee and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaydur Islam v. the State Level Committee and 5 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

Anupama Das Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gobin Saikia and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Dipamoni Borah Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Renumai Hazarika Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Anushri Roy Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Anju Devi Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.