Writ petition for appointment on compassionate grounds dismissed because the petitioner's case was previously considered and rejected on merits, and no substantial relief is warranted given the scheme's objective.
The writ petition stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010000532022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/92/2022
HARAJIT MEDHI S/O LATE DEBENDRA NATH MEDHI, VILLAGE AND PO LAWPARA, PS MUKALMUA, DIST NALBARI, ASSAM 781126
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI 781007
3:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM (COMMUNICATION ) HEAD OFFICE APRO ULUBARI GUWAHATI 781007
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (COMMUNICATION) APRO MESSAGE CONTROL CENTRE (MCC) DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006
5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI 78100
Page No.# 2/4
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
20-06-2022
Heard Shri A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M.D. Bora, learned State Counsel for all the respondents.
The father of the petitioner Late Debendra Nath Medhi was serving as an ASI (CY) APRO, Guwahati, who has passed away on 10.10.2015.
It is the case of the petitioner that he has passed the H.S. Examination and had filed an application dated 27.11.2015 for appointment on compassionate ground. On the earlier occasion also, the petitioner had filed WP(C)/3915/2016 wherein this Court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Communication, APRO, MCC to take steps to place the application of the petitioner in the District Level Committee (DLC). The petitioner states that no action was taken and therefore, the present writ petition was filed.
Shri Roshid, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a right for a fair consideration and such right is fortified by the direction passed in the earlier writ petition.
On the other hand, Ms. Bora, the learned State Counsel has strenuously opposed the prayer of the petitioner and by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 has submitted that the entire factual basis of filing the writ petition is erroneous.
Page No.# 3/4
By referring to Annexure-1 of the said affidavit-in-opposition filed on 18.02.2022, more particularly, the consideration made in the meeting dated 24.10.2016 in the DLC headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), it has been pointed out that the case of the petitioner was duly considered and after such consideration, the same was rejected by citing cogent grounds.
It has been stated that the case of the petitioner along with few others had to be rejected on the ground of lack of minimum educational qualification required for Constable which is Higher Secondary (Science) with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and there is no vacancy in Grade –IV.
The learned State Counsel further submits that the bereavement in the family being in the year 2015 and the entire object of the scheme of appointment on compassionate ground being to overcome the immediate hardships and crisis, no fruitful purpose would be served by directing further consideration after lapse of about 7 years.
In response, Shri Roshid, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a reply affidavit has been filed on 10.05.2022 whereby it has been stated that the petitioner was not aware of such outcome and makes an alternative prayer for considering his case for any other post.
After hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials on records, this Court is of the opinion that the principal grievance of filing the writ petition was alleged nonconsideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and that grievance appears to have been misconceived in view of the Minutes of Meeting dated 24.10.2016 in which the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected on merits. The said minutes further states that consideration in other post of Grade -IV was not possible as there was no vacancy.
In view of such facts and circumstances and also taking into consideration the submission of the learned State Counsel that the object of the scheme is to give
Page No.# 4/4
immediate succor to the family in crisis, no substantial relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage in this writ petition.
In view of the same, the writ petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds despite prior rejection on merits of the case.
Whether directing further consideration would serve the object of the compassionate appointment scheme after a lapse of seven years.
Harajit Medhi
The State of Assam
Sanjay Kumar Medhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
