Dismissed¶¶47

Sanjib Deka v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Feb 2026WP(C)/7012/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment — rejection by State Level Committee for want of reserved vacancies; District Level Committee recommendation for Grade-IV post; Industries and Commerce Department, Assam; sole 5% quota post filled 12.03.2010; delay of 7 years since employee's death; State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari (2025) 5 SCC 712 applied; Gauhati High Court judgment in WA 348/2017 distinguished; Sanjib Deka v. State of Assam; WP(C)/7012/2021; Justice Rajesh Mazumdar; advocates R K Talukdar and C K S Baruah (GA, Assam); writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The facts of the present case differ from the case in WA 348/2017 since the lack of vacancy was not merely asserted but explained in the affidavit and supported by the records attached thereto. ¶¶45

Sanjib Deka Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the decision of the State Level Committee dated 18.01.2020 rejecting the petitioner's candidature for compassionate appointment on the ground of want of vacancies reserved for such appointment was sustainable. +1 more

¶¶31

Court's answer

The facts of the present case differ from the case in WA 348/2017 since the lack of vacancy was not merely asserted but explained in the affidavit and supported by the records attached thereto.

¶¶45

Ratio / Principle

Applying the principle in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari (2025) 5 SCC 712 that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and claims may not be entertained after a considerable lapse of time since the employee's death, the Court noted that in the present case the death of the employee had occurred 7 years ago.

¶¶36

Key takeaways

This Court was unable to grant the writ petitioner's prayer for referral back to the State Level Committee since the want of vacancies had been demonstrated.ratio¶¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WP(C)/7012/2021, Gauhati High Court, decided 12.02.2026, Rajesh Mazumdar J.) by the son of an Industries and Commerce Department employee who died in harness on 17.01.2014, seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The District Level Committee recommended him on 14.11.2017 against a Grade-IV post in the office of the Executive Engineer, Industries and Commerce, Guwahati, but the State Level Committee rejected his case on 18.01.2020 for want of vacancies reserved for compassionate appointment. The respondents showed that the cadre strength of Grade-IV was 11, the sole 5% quota post having been filled on 12.03.2010. Applying State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari (2025) 5 SCC 712 (compassionate appointment is not a vested right; claims after considerable lapse of time since death may not be entertained) and noting the employee's death had occurred 7 years earlier, the Court distinguished its earlier judgment in WA 348/2017 (22.02.2018), where rejection for 'want of vacancy' was unsupported by records, holding that here the lack of vacancy was explained in the affidavit and supported by records. Prayer for referral back to the SLC refused; writ petition dismissed; no costs.

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010216042021

REPORTABLE

2026:GAU-AS:2213

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

¶6

Case No. : WP(C)/7012/2021

¶7

SANJIB DEKA

¶8

S/O LATE DAMODAR DEKA, VILL- SRI NAGAR (PUB JYOTI NAGAR), P.O.BAMUNI MAIDAM, P.S.-NOONMATI, DIST-KAMRUP(M), PIN-781021, ASSAM

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶11

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, GUWAHATI-781006

¶12

2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT ASSAM GUWAHATI-781006

¶13

3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-781021

¶14

4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

¶15

5:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR

Page No.# 2/6

GUWAHATI-78100

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

¶20

Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr R K Talukdar

¶21

Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr CKS Baruah, GA, Assam

¶22

Date on which judgment was reserved : NA

¶23

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 12.02.2026

¶24

Whether the pronouncement is of the : NA

¶25

operative part of the judgment?

¶26

Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced?

¶27

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶28

Heard Mr R K Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr C K S Baruah, learned GA, Assam.

¶29

The present writ petition has been filed assailing the decision of the State Level Committee taken in the meeting dated 18.01.2020, whereby the case of the petitioner for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground in Grade-IV post was rejected and for a direction to the State Level Committee to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in a Grade-IV or any other post in the office of the Executive Engineer, Industries and Commerce, Guwahati, in terms of the decision of the District Level Committee taken on 14.11.2017.

¶30

Page No.# 3/6

¶31

The assertion made in the writ petition is that the petitioner is the son of an employee of the Industries and Commerce Department, who died in harness on 17.01.2014, leaving behind his wife, a daughter and two sons. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed an application before the respondent authorities to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The District Level Committee, thereafter, met on 14th of November, 2017, wherein the name of the petitioner was shown to be recommended against the Grade-IV post in the office of the Executive Engineer, Industries and Commerce, Guwahati. After the said recommendation have been made, the State Level Committee considered the case of the petitioner in its meeting held on 18th of January, 2020 and the case of the petitioner along with 18 (eighteen) other recommended persons were placed before the State Level Committee. Two of the candidates were considered for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme, while the cases of 6 (six) candidates were directed to be placed in the next SLC meeting. The SLC meeting recorded that the cases of the other candidates could not be considered for want of vacancies reserved for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner fell within this category. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

¶32

The affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Secretary, Industries, Commerce and Public Enterprises Department, has sought to explain that as per the report received from the office of the Commissioner, Industries and Commerce, there was no vacancy for compassionate appointment. The cadre strength of Grade-IV in the office of the Executive Engineer, Guwahati, is 11, 5 % of which was approximated to one. The said sole post had already been filled up on 12.03.2010, by appointing another person on compassionate ground.

¶33

Page No.# 4/6

¶34

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the materials placed on record. The father of the petitioner expired in 2014, when the petitioner was aged about 30 years. The age of the brothers and sisters have not been disclosed. Assuming the application for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground had been preferred within a year, the first meeting which considered the case of the petitioner was conducted in the year 2017 and the final consideration came in the year 2020. The petitioner has approached this Court in the December 2021, after the application had been rejected in January, 2020.

¶35

In the case of State of West Bengal -Vs- Debabrata Tiwari and Others; reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712 , it has been held that since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to financial condition and hardship faced by dependants of deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since death of government employee. In the present case, the death of the employee had occurred 7 years ago.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by this Court WA 348/2017 on 22.02.2018, wherein this Court had observed as follows:-

¶37

“ At first blush, this case, touching on the issue of appointment on compassionate ground, appears to be misconceived and without merit, having regard to the scheme of compassionate appointment. A closer look reveals otherwise and conveys a message of serious concern and sparks an apprehension whether the State respondents are sincere in their effort to implement the scheme ensuring that persons who are deserving of such

¶38

Page No.# 5/6

¶39

appointments are not hopelessly abandoned. It is also a matter of concern whether the process of compassionate appointments is misused to suit the interest of vested circles. The facts in the instant case gives an impression that the State respondents are not too serious about it and are going about in a slipshod manner, allowing applications to gather dust for years and then summarily reject it as having spent its force. If that be so, it cannot be permitted and those responsible must be made accountable. There can be no unfettered discretion immune from judicial review on the part of the State respondents in picking and choosing persons for making compassionate appointment. It must always be uppermost in mind that time is always of essence for making compassionate appointment because the very object of such appointments are to save the family from immediate distress, which normally visits the family with the loss of the bread earner. Penury and destitution are the yardsticks on which compassionate appointment is required to be made within the earliest possible time, as delay in making such appointment would not only be fatal but defeat the very purpose of the scheme of compassionate appointment. This state of affairs would require attention and deliberation of the highest Executive functionaries in the State.

¶40

¶41

5. Application made by the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground well within time on 07.10.2009 was brought to an end only on 11.08.2017. The inordinate delay in the disposal of the application certainly cannot be attributed to the appellant. Further, nonapplication of mind is also demonstrated by the State Level Committee in rejecting his case due to want of vacancy when an exercise had already been conducted by the District Level Committee certifying the suitability of the appellant and existence of vacancies in the post of Forest Guards under the establishment of the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division,

¶42

Page No.# 6/6

¶43

Silchar. Rejection of an application without due application of mind and as a matter of course and by employing the expressions “want of vacancy” and “spent its force”, are easy methods to deprive a candidate from his legitimate entitlement. Such course of action would only go to frustrate and defeat the very object governing compassionate appointments. These shortcomings finds best illustration in the present case where the candidature of the appellant was rejected for want of vacancy despite favourable recommendation being made by the District Level Committee having regard to existence of vacancies and on ground of elapse of time, for which the appellant cannot be found fault at.

¶44

6. On the facts above, we are of the considered view that the case of the appellant for appointment on compassionate grounds was not handled judiciously and by going into the merits of his case. Rejection merely on technical grounds and on ground of want of vacancy does not find support from available records. It also does not inspire the confidence of this Court.

¶45

In the present case, the facts differ since the lack of vacancy has not only been explained in the affidavit as the same has been supported by the records attached thereto.

¶46

In view of the above findings, this Court is unable to grant the prayer of the writ petitioner for a referral back to the SLC since the want of vacancies has been demonstrated.

¶47

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶48

No cost(s).

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

Comparing Assistant

Sanjib Deka v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjib Deka v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunjalata Medhi Deka Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Asem Kanan Singh @ Ashem Kanan Singh Vs the Union of India

Khairuzzaman Shahniar Vs Smti. Mamata Hojai, Aes

Atowar Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Md. Ersad Alam Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Pulak Das Vs the State of Assam