KOHIMA— The Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court has quashed and set aside the “impugned seniority list” of applicants for compassionate appointment issued by the Home Commissioner and Director General of Police (DGP).
The matter was in regard to one, James K (petitioner), who applied to the DGP in November 2016 for appointment on compassionate ground after his father, a Havildar at B’ Coy Hqr. Shamator, died in harness in October 2016. But his application was not considered even after a lapse of three years.
In the meantime, the government has appointed many persons as constables, computer operators/drivers etc. between 2016 and 2019 without considering the case of the petitioner.
The petitioner has challenged the addendum bearing No. AR-8/8/78 dated April 9, 2019, issued by the state’s Chief Secretary, whereby, by way of insertion to the Office Memorandum dated September 17, 2015, it provides that compassionate appointment made to Group-C and Group-D post under the scheme shall be strictly in order of date of death and first preference shall always be given to those who have died earlier and who fulfills the other eligibility criteria, and the seniority list of applicants for compassionate appointment.
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=1]The court said that the addendum as such needs no interference as it is found to be a reasonable one.
"However, the manner in which the impugned Addendum dated 09.04.2019 has been sought to be implemented is unacceptable, and the consequent impugned seniority list dated 21.03.2022 purportedly based on the addendum, therefore, is not sustainable", it stated.
The impugned list included 25 persons, who doesn’t come within the purview of spouse, or sons, or daughters (as per the compassionate scheme); four names without the status of relationship with the deceased; five double names entered; 20 new applications on January 1, 2022 whose fathers had expired way back in 1991, 1995, 1996, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010(3), 2011(4), 2012(5), 2013(2), 2014(7), 2015(20), 2016(22 including the petitioner’s father, out of which, 16 were shown expired before the petitioner’s father in 2016 and four applications received in 2021 on different dates; inserted 14 new persons in the impugned list; 42 persons without date of birth; one person was eight months old when his father died on 18.08.1991; a wife who passed 12th Class was eight years old when her husband expired; seven persons over aged and from three years to 31 years in making application and over aged for appointments to service.
The court noted serious concern and the apprehension over the State respondents not being sincere in their effort to implement the (compassionate) scheme to ensure that persons who are deserving of such appointments are not abandoned.
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=1]"It is also a matter of great concern that the process of compassionate appointments appears to have been misused to suit the interest of some vested circles. The facts in the present case give an impression that the State respondents are not too serious about it and allowing applications to gather dust for years and on the basis of the Addendum dated 09.04.2019 certain unacceptable steps seems to have been taken which cannot be permitted and those responsible must be made accountable,” the court stated.
It added that the petition is partly allowed and disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to strictly follow the provisions of the OM dated Sep. 17, 2015 scheme for compassionate appointment in the state and the addendum, which is to be implemented and followed prospectively, and to compile and publish a fresh compassionate appointment applicants list.