Gauhati High Court
Md. Noor Ahmed vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 7 January, 2015
Author: T. Vaiphei
Bench: T. Vaiphei
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal
Pradesh)
WRIT PETITION (C) No. 5192/2014_
Md Noor Ahmed,
S/o Lt. Md. Ataur Rahman,
R/o Vill-Purbagool,
P.O. Duhalia,
Dist-Karimganj, Assam
.............Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam,
Represented by the Secretary to the
Govt. of Assam, Education
(Elementary) Department, Assam,
Dispur, Guwahati-6.
2. The Director, Elementary Education Assam,
Kahilipara.
3. The District Elementary Education Officer,
Karimganj, Assam.
4. District Level Selection Committee,
Represented by the D.E.E.O., Karimganj,
Assam.
..........Respondents
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. VAIPHEI For the petitioner : Mr. MH Choudhury, Ms. LN Choudhury, Ms. M. Deori, Ms. S. Khan, Mr. R. Ali, Advocates For the respondents: Mr. N. Sarma, SC, Elementary Education.
Date of hearing : 15.10.2014
Date of judgment: 7.1.2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
After hearing Mr. M.H. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. N. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department, Assam, I have no WP(C) No. 5192/14 Page 1 of 3 hesitation to hold that the writ petition suffers from inordinate delay and is, therefore, not maintainable.
2. The petitioner is admittedly the son of late Ataur Rahman, who died on 11-1-2006 when he was serving as Arabic Teacher of Mahakal M.E. Madrassa, Badarpur. He is survived by his family consisting of his wife and four children including the petitioner. As the sole bread earner in the family, his death caused financial hardship to his family members whereupon the petitioner immediately applied for compassionate appointment to any suitable post commensurate with his qualification. His application has never been disposed of even after repeated reminders made by him to the District Elementary Education Officer, Karimganj District on 3-3-2006, 3-7-2008, 15-10-2013 and 4-2-2014. This is how this writ petition has been filed by him for appropriate relief.
3. The petitioner should have approached this Court two or three years after the death of his father if the respondent authorities did not immediately disposed of his application. Having not done so and having preferred to wait for another eight years, the very object of giving immediate succour to the bereaved family has been frustrated. In this context, the following observations of the Apex Court in Chief Commr., CEC, Lucknow and others v. Prabhat Singh, (2012) 13 SCC 412 may be reproduced:
"18. The very object of making provision for appointment on compassionate grounds, is to provide succour to a family dependent on a government employee, who has unfortunately died in harness. On such death, the family suddenly finds itself in dire straits, on account of the absence of its sole breadwinner. Delay in seeking such a claim is an WP(C) No. 5192/14 Page 2 of 3 antithesis for the purpose for which compassionate appointment was conceived. Delay in raising such a claim is contradictory to the object sought to be achieved. The instant controversy reveals that even though Vijay Bahadur Singh, the father of the applicant (Prabhat Singh) seeking appointment on compassionate grounds had died on 2-3-1996, Prabhat Singh sought judicial redress, for the first time, by approaching CAT, Allahabad Bench in 2005. By such time, there was no surviving right for appointment on compassionate grounds under the OM dated 5-5-2003. As already noticed above, appointment on compassionate grounds under the OM dated 5-5-2003 is permissible within three years of the death of the breadwinner in harness. By now, sixteen years have passed by, and as such, there can be no surviving claim for compassionate appointment.
19. The courts and tribunals should not fall prey to any sympathy syndrome, so as to issue directions for compassionate appointments, without reference to the prescribed norms. The courts are not supposed to carry Santa Claus's big bag on Christmas eve to disburse the gift of compassionate appointment to all those who seek a court's intervention. The courts and tribunals must understand that every such act of sympathy, compassion and discretion wherein directions are issued for appointment on compassionate grounds could deprive a really needy family requiring financial support, and thereby, push into penury a truly indigent, destitute and impoverished family. Discretion is therefore ruled out. So are misplaced sympathy and compassion."
4. For what has been stated in the foregoing, this writ petition is not maintainable, and is, accordingly, dismissed but by directing the parties to bear their respective costs.
JUDGE Sinha WP(C) No. 5192/14 Page 3 of 3