Januka Devi vs State Of Assam And Ors

None appears for the petitioner. Ms. R. Bora appears for the BTC authorities. Ms. P. Chakravarty appears for the Secondary Education

Department.

The husband of the petitioner who was a grade IV employee in the Indralal Pathak Girls’ High School died in harness on 09.01.2014. On his

death, although the petitioner was temporarily appointed in the post on 25.01.2014 the Inspector of School had required the petitioner to submit an

application for compassionate appointment and accordingly an application for compassionate appointment was made on 29.01.2014. As nothing was

done, the petitioner had instituted WP(C) No. 1530/2017 and by the order dated 05.04.2017 a direction was issued that the application for

compassionate application be placed before the concerned DLC within a period of one month thereof. Accordingly, the application was placed before

the DLC of Baksa district and in its meeting held on 14.11.2017, the petitioner was recommended for an appointment against the vacant grade IV post

in Indralal Pathak Girls’ High School. The DLC also mentioned that the said recommendation was done in compliance of the direction of the

Court in WP(C) No. 1530/2017. But in the said circumstance, the Director of Education, BTC by an order dated 20.01.2018 appointed one Subhodh

Brahma as a Grade IV and posted him at Indralal Pathak Girls’ High School. Being aggrieved the present writ petition is instituted.

There is an interim order dated 26.03.2018 staying the appointment of the respondent no. 6. The A.D. Card received back shows that one Ajit

(illegible) has received the notice on behalf of the respondent no. 6, Subodh Brahma. It is unsure whether the notice was duly served on the

respondent no. 6, Subodh Brahma.

Be that as it may, the recommendation by the DLC was a prior point of time than the appointment made in favour of the respondent no. 6 by the

Director of Education, BTC. As there was already a recommendation against the same post by the DLC, it would have to be a matter for the

respondents to take a decision as to what they intend to do.

Be that as it may, as the claim of the petitioner was placed before the DLC pursuant to the direction of the Court and the DLC upon consideration

had recommended the petitioner against the vacant post of Indralal Pathak Girls’ High School, there is a requirement of law that the

recommendation of the DLC be now placed before the SLC. Accordingly, the competent authority being the DLC shall do the needful to place the

recommendation of the DLC of Baksa district dated 14.11.2017 before the next available SLC.

The SLC will look into the matter and if the post against which the petitioner was recommended, had in the meantime be filled up by any other

manner, on the other hand it would be incumbent upon the SLC to find out any other suitable vacant post to accommodate the petitioner. At the time

of making the recommendation by the DLC it was a legitimate recommendation as there existed a vacancy. But because of the appointment of the

respondent no. 6 by the order impugned, the vacancy ceased to exist by the time the matter reaches the SLC. In the circumstance, it cannot be a

situation before the SLC that the petitioner was recommended without there being any vacancy. As regards the appointment of the respondent no. 6

by the Director of Education, BTC it would be open for the authorities to attend the matter in any manner as may be advised.

We are passing this order in the circumstance that the appointment of the respondent no. 6 has not been interfered by the Court and it would be

open for respondent authorities to decide amongst themselves as to what should be the appropriate course of action under the law.

Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.