DILIP KR. DHAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal/intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.06.2019 rendered in WP(C) 7302/2015 (Dilip Kr. Dhar vs. The State of Assam and 2 Others).

(2.) Facts in brief leading to filing of the writ petition are that the appellant/writ petitioner claimed that his father Sri Debendra Chandra Dhar was serving as Peon in the Office of the respondent No.3 (Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Nagaon, Assam) and died in harness on 11.09.2003, leaving behind seven family members. The appellant/writ petitioner made a prayer for appointment on compassionate ground of Grade-IV post on 22.09.2003. Respondent No.3 appointed the petitioner on 07.12.2004 and the petitioner joined service on the same date. It has been claimed that the petitioner was even allotted GPF Account Number. However, vide order dated 19.01.2005, respondent No.3 released the petitioner on the pretext that he has been transferred in pursuance to order dated 17.01.2005 to the Office of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Morigaon. The petitioner joined the Office of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Morigaon and submitted his joining report on 11.02.2005. It was pleaded that the petitioner served in the Office of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Morigaon for about one month and thereafter he was again transferred to the establishment of respondent No.3. Pay certificate was issued to the petitioner dated 24.02.2005. The petitioner served in the establishment of respondent No.3 from March, 2005 to July, 2005. Thereafter the earlier incumbent working as respondent No.3 was transferred from Nagaon and the new incumbent to the Office of the respondent No.3, viz, Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagaon, Assam did not allow the appellant/writ petitioner to serve in the establishment, instead kept the appellant/writ petitioner on a false assurance that he will be allowed to join. After approaching respondent No.3, number of times the petitioner submitted representations, however, he was neither allowed to join nor was paid salary, hence the writ petition.

(3.) The writ petition has been dismissed while taking into account the fact that there was no material available on the record to indicate process of selection and appointment of the petitioner, as claimed by the petitioner. The name of the petitioner was referred to the District Level Committee. Comparative statements of the candidates reflect that the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 12.10.2003 which was formally placed before the District Level Committee. Comparative statements along with recommendation made by District Level Committee was taken up in the meeting of State Level Committee held on 20.12.2008. Candidature of the petitioner was not considered. There was no record that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in the establishment of respondent No.3. The appointment of the persons appointed after consideration by District Level Committee and State Level Committee had not been challenged by the petitioner.