Disposed

Sithi Suklabaidya @ Sithi Rani Suklabaidya v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Dec 2023WP(C)/472/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against rejection of compassionate appointment application. Court held rejection based solely on lack of qualification for a specific post was erroneous as petitioner could be considered for other suitable posts. Writ disposed of with direction to DLC for fresh consideration against any commensurate post.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of. Respondents directed to replace petitioner's application before District Level Committee for fresh consideration against any post commensurate with her qualification, in the

Sithi Suklabaidya @ Sithi Rani Suklabaidya… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010010942022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/472/2022

¶5

SITHI SUKLABAIDYA @ SITHI RANI SUKLABAIDYA D/O LATE MONINDRA SUKLABOIDYA, VILLAGE APPIN PART II, PO APPIN, PS KATLICHERA, DIST HAILAKANDI, ASSAM 788161

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (ELEMENTARY) DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06

¶8

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

¶9

ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19

¶10

3:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT

¶11

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI 06

¶12

4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITEE (DLC) HAILAKANDI FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788151

¶13

5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

HAILAKANDI ASSAM 78815

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S B LASKAR

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶20

11.12.2023

¶21

Heard Mr. H.A. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deuri, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶22

2. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present proceeding is that her application for appointment on compassionate ground submitted by her in pursuance to death of her father late Monindra Suklaboidya, who died-inharness on 31.10.2007, while serving as Assistant Teacher in 708 Abdullapur L.P. School, under Lala Education Block in the district of Hailakandi, was rejected on the ground that she did not have the requisite percentage in Higher Secondary level, which qualification is mandatory for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher in primary school of the State. The petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 11.10.2021 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi, whereby her application was rejected on the above ground. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of instituting WP(C) 4571/2019 along with other similarly situated persons raising a grievance with regard to non-consideration of their cases by the jurisdictional District Level Committee for appointment on compassionate ground. This Court vide order dated 15.07.2019 disposed of the said writ petition directing the District Level Committee to take on record the application of the petitioner and consider the

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

same. It is in pursuant to the said order that the case of the petitioner was considered and the order dated 11.10.2021 came to be passed.

¶25

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. The only ground on which the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment was rejected was that she was not qualified for the post of Assistant Teacher in primary school, inasmuch as, she had only 37.33% marks in Higher Secondary examination against the mandatory requirement of 45% marks. The DLC while rejecting her case on the said ground, lost sight of the fact that the application of the petitioner was for appointment on compassionate ground and the said application cannot be construed to be an application for appointment against a particular post. No right is vested in any candidate applying for compassionate appointment to claim for being considered against a particular post. The DLC having found that the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment merited consideration, ought to have considered her case against a post commensurating to her educational qualification. The said exercise does not seem to have been undertaken in the present case and the petitioner’s case was rejected only on the ground mentioned in the impugned order dated 11.10.2021.

¶26

4. In view of the said position, Mr. B. Deuri, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that this Court may remand back the matter to the concerned jurisdictional District Level Committee for a fresh consideration of the petitioner’s case against any post commensurating to her educational qualification.

¶27

5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of requiring the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi to replace the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground before the jurisdictional

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

District Level Committee in its next meeting. The DLC shall consider the case of the petitioner against any post commensurating to her educational qualification and before making such consideration, the committee shall satisfy itself about the availability of vacancies against the quota prescribed for compassionate appointment and also evaluate the other requisite particulars that are required to be considered, including the financial position of the petitioner and her family. The said exercise be carried out by the DLC in the next meeting to be convened after submission of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner. Further proceeding shall depend on the outcome of the recommendation that may be made on due consideration of the case of the petitioner by the DLC.

¶30

In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Sithi Suklabaidya @ Sithi Rani Suklabaidya v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sithi Suklabaidya @ Sithi Rani Suklabaidya v. the State of Assam and 4 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

Dr. Gitamoni Handhique Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Kanak Ch. Kuli Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Rekibuddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Salim Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Omar Ali Sheikh Vs Mamata Hojai

Monsura Khatun Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.