Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs Tazimul Islam on 9 February, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010129832019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3991/2019
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MIN OF
COMMUNICATION
2: THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL
ASSAM CIRCLE
MEGHDOOT BHAWAN
PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI- 781001
3: THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
GUWAHATI DIVISION
MEGHDOOT BHAWAN
PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI
PIN- 78100
VERSUS
TAZIMUL ISLAM
S/O- LATE BAHARUL ISLAM, VILL- DINKAR (KAMALPUR), P.O-BAIHATA
CHARIALI, DIST- KAMRUP, PIN- 781380
Advocate for the Petitioner : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A AHMED
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
09.02.2022 The matter is taken up through video conferencing.
This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India against the order dated 10.05.2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench, in O.A. No. 040/00357/2016.
Heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Doli Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
This matter relates to appointment on compassionate ground. The material facts of the case are that the father of the respondent, who was working as a Group 'D' employee under Guwahati Postal Division, was deputed to the Army Postal Service Centre at Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. He died on 26.04.2008 while in harness and, consequently, the respondent applied to the concerned authority in the year 2008 for appointment on compassionate ground. Although the candidature of the respondent was considered in the years 2011 and 2012, but he was neither appointed nor was any information given to him as to the fate of his application for his compassionate appointment. The petitioner thereafter secured the information under the Right to Information Act, which disclosed that for the vacancy in the year 2011, one Sri Sanjib Kr. Das was appointed, who had secured 68 marks. Again, in the year 2012, one Sri Dipjyoti Sharma was appointed, who also had secured 68 marks. In both the cases, the respondent was denied appointment although he too secured 68 marks. Since the matter relates to Central Government Services, the respondent Page No.# 3/3 filed an original application, being O.A. No. 040/00357/2016, before the CAT, Guwahati Bench, challenging the decision of the authorities and seeking direction for his appointment on compassionate ground. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the non-recommendation of the name of the applicant (respondent before this court) for the vacancy year of 2011 and 2012 was arbitrary. Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 10.05.2018, the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the present respondent by directing the respondent authorities (petitioners before this court) to appoint the applicant against the vacancies of 2011 within a period of four months. Against this order of the Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed by the Union of India. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that in both the vacancy years, i.e. 2011 and 2012, the petitioner was a candidate for appointment to the posts which were reserved for appointment on compassionate ground. Although the petitioner had secured 68 marks, yet he was not appointed but others having secured the same marks were appointed. We, therefore, find that the order passed by the CAT, Guwahati Bench, to be correct, which hence calls for no interference.
We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition and uphold the order dated 10.05.2018, passed by the CAT, Guwahati Bench, in O.A. No. 040/00357/2016. Let the order of the CAT, Guwahati, be complied with within a period of four months from today.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant