WP(C)/7051/2022 of TUHIN BISWAS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS on 10 June 2026

ORDER

11.06.2026 Heard Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. G. Pegu, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent No.3.

2. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the minutes of the meeting of the District Level Committee (DLC) for compassionate appointment held on 17.09.2022, whereby the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that his father, late Tarun Biswas, who was working as an Assistant Teacher under the Block Elementary Education Officer, Karimganj Block, Karimganj District, died-in-harness on 28.02.2007, leaving behind the petitioner (then a minor) along with his mother and other family members. On attaining majority, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment before the authority by submitting a representation in the year 2013. However, the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was rejected by the District Level Committee vide minutes dated 17.09.2022, solely on the ground that the deceased, late Tarun Biswas, had less than three years of service remaining at the time of his death. Therefore, he did not satisfy the requirement contained in Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, which prescribed a minimum balance of three years of service for consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment.

4. From the pleadings and submissions of the parties, it appears that there is no dispute that the petitioner’s father was serving as an Assistant Teacher at Dasgram M. E. School under the Block Elementary Education Officer, Karimganj Block, Karimganj District, and he died in harness on 28.02.2007, leaving behind the petitioner, who was then a minor, along with his mother and other family members. The petitioner, being a dependent family member of the deceased employee, after attaining majority, submitted representations dated 13.12.2013, 11.07.2016 and 02.05.2022 seeking appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme along with all relevant educational qualification certificates. However, the said applications were rejected solely on account of the condition contained in Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015.

5. It is also not in dispute that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by judgment and order dated 30.01.2023 passed in analogous writ petitions, the lead case being WP(C) No. 1646/2021, declared Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, in so far as it prescribes the requirement of a minimum balance of three years of service of the deceased employee, to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1646/2021 directed the authorities to consider the cases of applicants whose claims had been rejected solely on the basis of Clause 1 of the said Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015.

6. The said judgment and order dated 30.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 1646/2021 was challenged by the State authorities in Writ Appeal No. 287/2023 and connected appeals. However, the Division Bench, by judgment and order dated 12.12.2025, affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ appeals, with an observation that the statutory authority, while deciding the cases of the private respondents, shall appropriately apply the law relating to compassionate appointment.

7. In the present case, the sole reason for rejection of the petitioner’s claim was the operation of Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. However, since the said Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum has been declared unconstitutional, and the said declaration having attained finality upon affirmation by the Division Bench, the basis on which the petitioner’s claim was rejected no longer survives.

8. In that view of the matter, the decision of the District Level Committee contained in the minutes dated 17.09.2022, insofar as it rejects the petitioner’s claim on the strength of Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, cannot be sustained in law. The same is accordingly set aside.

9. As a result, the writ petition stands allowed.

10. The matter is remanded back to the District Level Committee (DLC), Karimganj, with a direction to consider the petitioner’s claim for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme afresh, without reference to or reliance upon the condition relating to minimum balance of three years of service contained in Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. It is further directed that the petitioner’s case shall be considered strictly in accordance with the applicable policy/scheme governing compassionate appointment and subject to fulfilment of all other eligibility conditions.

11. The appropriate authority shall undertake the aforesaid exercise and pass a reasoned order within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

12. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant