JUNED AHMED MAZARBHUIYA, SON OF LATE ABDUL MANNAN MAZARBHUIYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHATIRKUPA PART Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. R. Mazumdar, the learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department, and Mrs. R. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate, it is evident that this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of laches.

(2.) The late Abdul Mannan Mazarbhuiya, father of the petitioner, died on 4-6-2000, while he was serving as Hindi teacher of Arzid Ali Memorial M.E. School, Hailakandi leaving his wife, one daughter and two sons including the petitioner. At the time of the death of his father, the petitioner was about 15 years old and, therefore, a minor. His mother initially applied for compassionate appointment in her name on 10-2-2001 before the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi. Several correspondences ensued thereafter but nothing came out of it. In the meantime, the petitioner, having attained majority, submitted an application for compassionate in his name on 23-3-2005 in place of his mother. The petitioner also filed WP(C) No. 4112 of 2005 before this Court, which by the order dated 27-6-2005 disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner accordingly submitted the copy of the said order to the respondent No. 2, but nothing has been done by the respondent No. 2 which prompted him to initiate this second round of litigation. It may be noted that no contempt petition had ever been filed by him against the respondents for not complying with the order of this Court before filing this second writ petition.

(3.) According to the petitioner, this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das & ors. Vs. State of Assam and others, 2006 (4) GLT 674 has laid down certain guidelines for consideration in the matter of compassionate appointment such as consideration of pending applications within a period of four months except those applications which remained pending and could not be considered for want of vacancies for a period of two years from the date of making the application. It is the contention of the petitioner that as the delay is not attributable to his acts of omission or commission, his case could have been duly considered.