Nitul Barman Vs the Sttae of Assam and 3 Ors.

Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Konwar, learned Govt. Advocate for the State and Ms. D. Mushahari, learned standing Counsel for the Secondary Education Department.

¶21

2. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 04.01.2021, by which the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment due to the death of his father in harness was rejected.

¶22

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the request for compassionate appointment by the petitioner was rejected by the State Level Committee on the ground that the father of the petitioner had died in harness when he had less than 3 years of service to retire.

¶23

4. The learned counsel submits that Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 provides that the dependant family member of a Govt. servant who dies in harness is eligible to apply for compassionate appointment but if the Govt. servant does not have a minimum of 3 years of service left in his tenure, the request for compassionate appointment will not be adhered to.

¶24

5. However, he submits that the said clause-1 of the notification was challenged before this Court and by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

1646/2021 i.e., in Bhaskar Konwar Vs. The State of Assam and 4 Ors. held that the said Clause-1 of the said memorandum being violative of Article 14 was stated to be unconstitutional, and the said provision was struck down.

¶27

6. Against the said decision, the State of Assam had filed appeals, one being Writ Appeal No. 287/2023, which were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 12.12.2025, by which the judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench. The conclusion of the Hon’ble Division Bench is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶28

“17. On these grounds, we find the declaration of Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 to be constitutionally invalid by the learned Single Judge, to be wholly justified.’’

¶29

7. As such, it is seen that Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum, dated 01.06.2015 is struck off as stated above. The case of the petitioner in this case is that his father was serving as the Assistant teacher at RajKadamtal Balika Vidyapeeth High School at Paikarkuchi, Nalbari, and that while he was working in the said capacity, he died on 21.07.2016. The death certificate of the petitioner’s father has been annexed in the instant petition.

¶30

8. The petitioner had further stated that his father rendered total length of service being 24 years, 8 months and 2 days till his death. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the death of his father, the entire family went into severe misery as his father was the sole bread earner in the family. The petitioner had already done his graduation from Nalbari College and he applied for a job before the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari, for his appointment as an Assistant teacher.

¶31

9. He came to know about the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 and he

¶32

Page No.# 4/5

¶33

being eligible made an application for compassionate appointment before the concerned authorities. He thereafter, stated that the District Level Committee considered his application and recommended his name for appointment on compassionate ground for the post of Grade-III (LDA) against OBC/MOBC vacant post. The District Level Committee after a meeting recommended his name to the State Level Committee for consideration.

¶34

10. It is the further case of the petitioner that the State Level Committee held its meeting on 04.01.2021 and held inter alia that the petitioner's case cannot be recommended for compassionate appointment as the remaining service period of his father, the deceased Government employee was less than 3 years, in view of the disqualification mentioned in Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. As such, the State Level Committee did not recommend the name of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

¶35

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner had placed that Clause-1 of the said memorandum was challenged in Writ Petition No. 1646/2021 and this Court by order dated 30.01.2023, held that Clause-1 of the said memorandum is unconstitutional and accordingly had struck down the provision. Against that the State had filed an appeal as stated above and the Hon’ble Division Bench had upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge by order dated 12.12.2025.

¶36

12. In view of the same, the learned counsels submits that there being no impediment for consideration of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and the reason for rejection of his appointment by the State Level Committee having become otiose, the prayer of the petitioner should be considered by the State Level Committee.

¶37

Page No.# 5/5

¶38

13. In view of the said facts and circumstances, this Court therefore thinks fit that the State Level Committee shall reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of the judgments passed in both the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal.

¶39

14. It is not required to be mentioned but for the ends of justice, this Court directs that the petitioner’s case was already recommended by the District Level Committee and there is no need for the petitioner to file a fresh application for compassionate appointment and that his case shall be considered by the State Level Committee. It is further directed that the Committee may consider his case within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶40

15. The petitioner is directed to place this order before the State Level Committee for his re-consideration

¶41

16. This petition stands disposed of.

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

Nitul Barman v. the Sttae of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitul Barman v. the Sttae of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nur Mohammad Vs the State of Assam

Gias Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Mausam Dutta Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Pawan Kumar Tiwari Vs Govind Mohan, IAS and 5 Ors.

Tankeswar Nath Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Bhabani Deka Morang Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.