RENUSAIKIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's father who was a School Teacher died in the year 1986. After becoming eligible and qualified, the petitioner sought appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with the prevailing Govt. Policy. The claim of the petitioner was answered in her favour by the State Government who approved her case for compassionate appointment. Such approval is contained in a letter dated 22.9.95 issued by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. On receipt of the said communication, the Director, in turn by letter dated 9.11.95 directed the Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Lakhimpur to appoint the petitioner and to send the appointment letter to the office of the Director for counter signature. What happened thereafter, is not known. But as it appears form another letter dated 22.5.98 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), the State Govt. again enquired from the Director of Elementary Education as to the present position of the case of the petitioner. Eventually, not having been appointed, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions for the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground in accordance with the approval accorded by the State Government.

(2.) The idea underlying judicial recognition of compassionate appointment as legally valid, notwithstanding the provisions under Article 14 of the Constitution, is that such appointments are required to be made as the nomenclature suggests, on compassionate ground. This is precisely why judicial opinion has held the concept of compassionate to be consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution, Compassionate appointments are made to enable family members of a deceased Government servant to tide over the immediate crisis faced by the family members on account of the untimely dealth of the Government servant. Long efflux of time and the ability of the affected family to survive the various odds faced by it, substantially erodes the need/necessity for making the appointment on compassionate grounds. No inflexible time frame can be fixed for such determination; everything would depend on the facts of a given case. In the present case, the petitioner's father died in the year 1986 and almost two decades have elapsed, in the meantime. That apart, in terms of the policy in force, appointment on compassionate ground is required to be made, against a 5% quota of available vacancies. The vacancy earlier identified for the appointment must have been filled up; whether any other vacancy exists in the concerned establishment is not known. In such circumstances any order of appointment of the petitioner may have an adverse effect on the rights of persons not before the Court. For all the said reasons, I do not consider the present to be a fit case for grant of a positive direction for appointment of the petitioner.

(3.) However, what cannot be overlooked is the wrong done to the petitioner. Notwithstanding the approval granted by the State Government and the affirmative direction issued by the Director of elementary Education to the jurisdictional Deputy Inspector of Schools to issue the appointment letter, nothing was done. Though the present case has remained pending for nearly 5 years now, nothing has been brought on record by the respondents to enable the Court to appreciate the reasons for not appointing the petitioner. In such a situation, it would be legitimate for the Court to infer that there was no valid ground for actions of the Respondents in not appointing the petitioner at the time when such appointment was required to be made and the refusal to appoint is a highly arbitrary action disclosing no acceptable basis in law.