Arup Sarma vs State Of Assam And Ors

Heard Mr. A. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deuri, learned counsel or the respondents No.2 and 7 and Mr. B.

Kaushik, learned counsel for the Elementary Education Department.

The father of the petitioner who served as Grade-IV employee in the Kalazal M.E. School died in harness on 11.12.2013. On his death, the

petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 06.03.2014 which apparently appears to be on time.

The DLC of Kamrup district in its meeting dated 12.10.2015 while considering the application of the petitioner had provided as follows:-

“After examining the following proposals the DLC decided to forward the proposals from the strength of post of Grade-IV of the office of the

Inspector of Schools, Kamrup District Circle, Amingaon as per rule 15 of the Govt. O.M. No.ABP-50/2006/Pt/182 dated-1/6/2015 and requested the

concerned departments/offices to take up the matter between them and accordingly submit the proposal to the SLC for consideration.

Rafiqul Islam 9. Arif Ali

Syeda Nur Akhtara 10. Arup Sarma

Nabin Boro. 11. Dipankar Nath

Amarjyoti Kalita 12. Karuna Rabha

Sajid Ahmed. 13. Namita Choudhury

Kartik Das 14. Irabari Das

Mozahid Hussain 15. Niva Rani Begum

Shahnawaz Sarif

The DLC decided to forward the proposals of Md. Sabir Alom from the strength of post of Grade-IV of the office of the District Animal Husbandry

& Veterinary Officer, Kamrup, Amingaon as per rule 15 of the Govt. O.M. No. ABP-50/2006/Pt/182, dated-1/6/2015 and requested the concerned

departments/offices to take up the matter between them and accordingly submit the proposal to the SLC for consideration.â€​

The purport of the recommendation of the provision of the DLC is that as appropriate vacancies were not found, therefore, it is for the SLC to

examine the matter under Rule 15 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 and for the purpose requested to the concerned department to take

up the matter between themselves and the SLC.

We are afraid that the responsibility to make such recommendation is not on the SLC and the DLC has to identify a clear vacancy if they want to

make a recommendation. The DLC can also invoke the provision of Clause 15 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 and find out if

appropriate vacancies are available in the other department but the DLC cannot send the matter to the SLC and request the other departments to

coordinate with the SLC to arrive at their conclusion.

In the circumstance, the SLC had rightly rejected the recommendation of the DLC.

In the circumstance, we remand the matter back to the DLC Kamrup district for consideration of the claim of the petitioner by identifying the

appropriate vacancy, if necessary by invoking Clause 15 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 and pass appropriate orders on the claim of the

petitioner for compassionate appointment as per law. The matter be placed before the next available DLC of Kamrup district.