Allowed

Anushri Roy v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Jun 2022WP(C)/478/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking compassionate appointment following her father's death. The Court remanded the rejection order to the DLC for re-examination, criticizing the vague reason given for the initial rejection and directing fresh consideration based on merit, available vacancies, or other departments.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; matter remanded to the next available DLC of BTC for fresh consideration as per law.

Anushri Roy Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010013282022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/478/2022

¶5

ANUSHRI ROY D/O- LATE ANANTA KR. ROY, VLLAGE- KAMARPARA, P.O- SALKOCHA AND P.S- CHAPAR, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783348

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

¶8

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI06

¶9

2:TE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BTC KOKRAJHAR DIST- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783370

¶10

3:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION BTC KOKRAJHAR DIST- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783370

¶11

4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER BTC KOKRAJHAR DIST- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783370

¶12

5:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

BTC KOKRAJHAR BLOCK DIST- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783370

¶15

6:DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL BTC KOKRAJHAR DIST- KOKRAJHAR PIN-783370

¶16

7:THE SLC

¶17

THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K DUTTA

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

10.06.2022

¶23

Heard Mr. D Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. NM Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 being the authority in the Elementary Education Department of the Government of Assam, Ms. RB Bora, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 being the authorities in the Education Department, BTC, Ms. DD Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent No. 7 being the Chief Secretary of the State of Assam and also Mr. D Mazumdar, learned Additional Advocate General in view of the peculiarity of the reason by which the DLC of BTC in its meeting dated 01.11.2021 had rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

¶24

The father of the petitioner, who was the Headmaster of 592 No. Bandarmuri LP School under Kokrajhar Education Block in the in the Kokrajhar

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

district, died in harness on 05.03.2016 and on his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 09.02.2017. The said application was placed before the DLC of BTC in its meeting of 01.11.2021 and the DLC rejected the claim of the petitioner by providing as extracted:-

¶27

“Not recommended due to non fulfilment of criteria of 5% reserved quota.”

¶28

Being unable to understand the meaning of the reason given by the DLC, we requested the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent authorities to examine the said aspect and inform the Court as to what can be the possible reason for rejecting the application of the petitioner. Even, Mr. D Mazumdar, learned Additional Advocate General also appeared on behalf of the respondents to examine the said aspect. But no appropriate meaning is discernible to understand the reason for the rejection.

¶29

In view of the above, the matter stands remanded back to be placed before the next available DLC of BTC for a fresh consideration of the claim of the petitioner as per law. In doing so, the application of the petitioner be considered by the DLC as per its own merit as well as against any vacancies that may be available in any other Department for which the petitioner may be duly qualified for as provided in paragraph 15 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015.

¶30

The writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Anushri Roy v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anushri Roy v. the State of Assam and 6 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

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.

Shaydur Islam Vs the State Level Committee and 5 Ors.

Anju Devi Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.