Prasanta Kr Roy vs State Of Assam And 4 Ors

Heard Mr. N Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G Pegu, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 3 respectively being

the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam and the Deputy Commissioner Goalpara and Mr. NJ Khataniar, learned counsel for respondents

No.2, 4 and 5 being the authorities under the Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam.

The mother of the petitioner, Premodabala Devi who served as an Assistant Teacher in the Government JB School (Lower Primary) Agia in the

Goalpara district died in harness on 08.06.1998. On her death, the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment on 01.09.1998. The

said application of the petitioner was placed before the DLC of Goalpara district in its proceeding dated 10.03.2004 and 27.09.2004. The DLC arrived

at its conclusion that 182 vacancies are available for Assistant Teacher in the lower primary schools in Goalpara district and, accordingly, 5% thereof

was calculated to be 12 posts for the purpose of compassionate appointment. Against the 12 identified vacant posts, the petitioner was recommended

for appointment in the Makri LP School against the vacancy created on the retirement of one Tarani Kt. Das, Assistant Teacher. The said

recommendation of the DLC was forwarded by the District Elementary Education Officer Goalpara by the communication dated 04.11.2004. The said

recommendation of the DLC was not placed before the SLC for its consideration. On the other hand, the DLC again took up the claim of the

petitioner on its own and as per the resolution dated 31.08.2012, the petitioner was again recommended. We have noticed one infirmity in the

recommendation of the DLC made on 31.08.2012 to the extent that the DLC provides in Clause 21 of its recommendation that the recommendation

would be subject to the creation of post by the Government or allow from the existing vacant post in the Goalpara district. Both the observations are

unacceptable in law and beyond the scope of DLC.

A duty is cast upon the DLC to identify if any vacant post is available for compassionate appointment in respect of a particular district and they

have no authority to provide that the recommendation would be against creation of post by the Government or against any unidentified existing vacant

post. The second illegality committed by the DLC is that as we have already indicated, the DLC has no power to review its earlier recommendation

and again consider same application after it had already recommended for appointment. From such point of view, the assumption of authority by the

DLC of 31.08.2012 is also illegal and unacceptable.

Be that as it may, the illegal recommendation of the DLC dated 31.08.2012 was placed before the SLC and the claim of the petitioner stood

rejected. We find that the legal right of the petitioner has been violated by the respondent authorities to the extent that the appropriate recommendation

of the DLC dated 10.03.2004 and 27.09.2004 was not placed before the SLC, whereas the illegal recommendation of the DLC was placed requiring it

to be rejected by the SLC.

Considering the above, the respondents in the Elementary Education Department is directed to place the earlier recommendations of the DLC dated

10.03.2004 and 27.09.2004 before the next available SLC.

The SLC may pass any relevant order under the law as may be applicable without being influenced by any observations made in this matter.

Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.