BISHNU PRASAD BORA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner for directing the respondent authorities to appoint him on compassionate ground. The father of the petitioner died on 1-2-1998 when he was serving as Assistant Teacher of Jajori Higher Secondary School, Nagaon district. He left behind him the petitioner, his mother and his two daughters. Five years after the death of his father, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment vide his application dated 8-8-2003. His mother was granted family pension at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month and was also paid a lump sum amount of Rs. 91,183/- as gratuity. After dilly dallying by the respondent authorities for sometime, his application was placed before the District Level Selection Committee, but when no action was forthcoming, he approached this Court in WP(C) No. 225 of 2010, and this Court by the order dated 20-9-2010 directed the Inspector of Schools, Nagaon to take necessary action and complete the same within two months. Contempt Case (C) No. 272/2011 was filed by him when the direction of this Court was not complied with. In compliance with the direction of this Court, his case was finally considered by the District Level Selection Committee, which, however, rejected his application. This is how this writ petition is again filed by him.

(2.) A number of contentions have been by Mr. D.K. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, to assail the decision of the respondent authorities in rejecting the application of the petitioner. Irrespective of the intervention of this Court subsequently, which also came a cropper, and the deplorable inaction of the respondent authorities in processing the case of the petitioner, one thing must not be overlooked, namely, the grossly negligent conduct of the petitioner in applying for the appointment. The legal position is reiterated by the Apex Court in State of J & K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, 2006 5 SCC 766 . In that case, the father of the applicant died in March 1987. The application was filed by the applicant after four-and-a-half years in September 1991 which was rejected in March 1996. The writ petition was filed in June 1999 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in July 2000. When the Division Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years had passed from the date of the death of the father of the applicant. The said fact was indeed a relevant and material fact which went to show that the family survived in spite of the death of the employee. Moreover, though the order was passed in 1996, it was not challenged by the applicant immediately. He took the chance of challenging the order in 1999 when there was inter-departmental communication in 1999. The Apex Court took the view that the Division Bench ought not to have allowed the appeal. While allowing the appeal, the Apex Court observes as under:

(3.) Interestingly, the facts of that case and the case herein are virtually on all fours. The application for compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner demonstrably suffers from the vice of laches and was rightly not entertained by the respondent authorities. There is thus no merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed but without costs.