Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. (Oral) - Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.C Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

2. The husband of the petitioner, who was earlier serving as a Grade-IV employee in the office of the Superintendent of Sericulture, Jonai, died in harness on 25.05.2010. Upon his death, the petitioner immediately applied for an appointment on compassionate ground in the prescribed format within the period of one year from the death.

3. The application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was placed before the District Level Committee (DLC) in its meeting held on 27.06.2011. As per Serial No. 14 in the said minutes of the meeting of the DLC, the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was recommended for a Grade-IV post. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed by a communication dated 30.07.2016 of the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Handloom Textile and Sericulture Department that the petitioners case was placed before the State Level Committee (SLC) held on 01.03.2013 and 30.01.2016 respectively, but, her name could not be recommended by the SLC. Along with the said communication, an extract of some minutes of the SLC was also provided to the petitioner, although the date thereof is not available.

4. Be that as it may, on a reading of the minutes of the SLC, whatever provided to the petitioner, it is seen that in Clause-3, it is written that those applications, which are of more than two years, are rejected and further the cases of remaining applicants be placed before the next SLC only if vacant posts are available before completion of two years.

5. From the extracts of the minutes of the SLC provided to the petitioner a long with the communication dated 30.07.2016, it is not clear as to whether the case of the petitioner was rejected as because her application was more than two years old or it was rejected for want of vacant post. However, from the said minutes, it is also noticed that certain recommendations were made for appointment against Grade-IV post and therefore, it cannot be said that there was no vacant post available before the SLC.

6. The law regarding consideration for compassionate appointment has been laid down by this Court in two of its adjudications in Achyut Ranjan Dass case and Faziran Nesas case. One of the provisions of the aforesaid pronouncements of this Court is that the recommendation for compassionate appointment has to be made on an inter-se comparison of the financial condition of the candidates, meaning thereby that the candidate, who are comparatively worse off financially, in comparison with the other candidates, are to be recommended for compassionate appointment.

7. The aforesaid provision itself requires the authorities to make an inter-se comparison of the financial condition of all the available candidates under consideration and only there upon the recommendation is to be made. Secondly, although it is a pronouncement of this Court that the applications, which are more than two years old are to be discarded, but at the same time, the pronouncement of this Court also lays down that the SLC should meet at least every three months.

8. From a reading of the communication provided to the petitioner, it does not appear that in the instant case, the SLC had met every three months after the recommendation of the petitioner by the DLC. If on one hand, the Court provides that the applications more than two years old are to be rejected, at the same time, it is also provided that the SLC is to meet every three months; it is incumbent on the authorities to follow all the provisions of the said order. In order to take advantage of the provisions that the applications more than two years are to be rejected, it is also necessary for the SLC to sit every three months. If the SLC does not sit for more than two years, it would be highly arbitrary on its part to reject an application saying that the application is more than two years old.

9. Further, as alluded herein above, there is no indication that the case of the petitioner was given an inter-se financial comparison with the other candidates under consideration.

10. In such view of the matter, the decision of the SLC contained in the extracts of the minutes provided to the petitioner by the communication dated 30.07.2016 is held to have been done in a manner contrary to what has been laid down by this Court in Achyut Ranjan Dass case and Faziran Nesas case.

11. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is deemed appropriate that the petitioner be given a fresh consideration by the SLC strictly by following the provisions of the law laid down in Achyut Ranjan Dass case and Faziran Nesas case.

12. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner is directed to be placed before the next available SLC for an appropriate consideration.

13. With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.