WP(C) 1642/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B K SHARMA This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respond ents to appoint the petitioners as Constable against the vacancies earmarked for compassionate appointment. [2] The petitioners being eligible for consideration of their cases for appointment on compassionate ground offered their candidatures in response t o the advertisement dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure-II). The said advertisement was i ssued for the post of Constables. In the advertisement it was indicated that 5% of the vacancies are reserved for legal heirs of the deceased employees who died in harness. [4] In acceptance of the candidatures offered by the petitioners the y were invited for a selection consisting of physical fitness test and other qua lifying examinations. They having qualified in the said examinations were invite d for interview in which they also appeared. [5] The results of the selection were declared on 25.4.1988. In the district of Nagaon with which we are concerned, altogether 168 candidates were s elected for appointment and all of them had been sent for training after medical test. The names of the petitioners did not figure in the select list against th e quota earmarked for compassionate appointment. However, on enquiry they were i nformed that a separate list for such appointment would be published in due cour se. According to the petitioners, they were also informed that they had been sel ected. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 sent the petitioners to Nagaon Civil Hosp ital for their medical test on 1.5.2008. After such medical test, Police verific ation etc. were also carried out to facilitate appointment of the petitioners. H owever, when they were not so appointed, they made time to time representations but the same did not yield any result. [6] In Paragraph-9 of the writ petition it has been stated that the respondents had informed the petitioners that their names had appeared in the re sult sheet issued/prepared by the respondent No.3 on 19.03.2008. According to th e petitioners, the respondents assured them of necessary follow up action toward s their appointments. However, when no such action followed, they filed the inst ant writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. [7] In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents the aforesaid fact stated in the writ petition has not been denied. In Paragraph-4 of the coun ter-affidavit it has been stated as follows : That in regard to the statement made in paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Writ petition the deponent states that the Selection Board for post of AB Constable/0 7 of Nagaon Dist. selected 178 candidates as per advertisement including the can didates on compassionate ground. The Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon had submitted a list of candidates with the minutes of meeting of District Level Committee, Nag aon held on 17.10.2007 who have applied for appointment in Grade-III and Grade-I V post on compassionate ground. The proposal received from the Deputy Commission er, Nagaon was placed before the meeting of SLC held on 13.8.2008. The State Lev el Committee could not recommend the names of the petitioners as the application of the petitioner was found to be more than three and half years old. [8] In the reply-affidavit filed by the petitioners they have reiter ated their stand in the writ petition. Their stand is that the recruitment proce ss for appointment against 5% vacancies earmarked for compassionate appointment having been initiated in November, 2007 and the petitioners having appeared in t he selection and cleared the same successfully, the respondents could not have t aken the plea of any delay on the part of the petitioners. According to the peti tioners, they had applied for appointment in response to the particular advertis ement, which made provision for compassionate appointment and the State Level Co mmittee could not have interfered with their selection on the aforesaid ground. [9] I have heard Mr. N Haque, learned counsel led by Dr. B Ahmed, le arned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Ms. R Chakraborty, learned Additional Sr. Government Advocate, Assam. I have given my anxious consideration to the materials on record. [10] As noted above, there is no dispute that the petitioners have been selec ted in the particular selection conducted for the purpose of appointment to the post of Constables. They had offered their candidatures for appointment as such against the quota earmarked for compassionate appointment. As per the own admiss ion of the respondents, the petitioners had appeared to the said selection but t he State Level Committee in its meeting on 13.8.2008, while dealing with the rec ommendations of District level Committee dated 17.10.2007 declined to recommend them on the ground that their applications were pending for more than three and half years. While doing so, the State Level Committee did not deal with the fact that the petitioners had offered their candidatures in response to an open adve rtisement. In the advertisement 5% of the vacancies were indicated as reserved f or compassionate appointment. [11] The aforesaid view of the State Level Committee although not spe lt out in the minutes of discussion, must have been taken in view of the particu lar observation made by this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das Vs. State of Assam & Ors . reported in (2006) 4 GLT 674. In the said decision this Court while considerin g number of writ petitions with the claim for compassionate appointment made cer tain guidelines, one of which is as follows : X. If the applications of the eligible candidates remain pending and cannot be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of 2(two) years from the date o f making such applications, all such applications will require no further consid eration and must be understood to have spent their force. [12] When the aforesaid Clause 10 guideline was sought to be applied universally in all cases of compassionate appointment, this Court clarified the position in its decision in Ajit Pator & Ors. Vs State of Assam reported in 2009 (3) GLT 306. After discussing the judgment in Achyut Ranjan Das (supra) the Cou rt has made the following observations in Pargraphs 6, 7 and 8. 6. Reading the aforesaid two directions issued by the Court, it clearly appears that as a one-time measure all pending cases were required to be considered in accordance with the other specific directions contained in paragraph 7 of the ju dgment. Once consideration of a case as a one-time measure is over, such applica tions that may remain pending are not required to be considered, if a period of more than two years had elapsed. 7. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the District Level Selection Co mmittee was justified in refusing to consider the cases of the petitioners. Such cases were required to be considered along with all other pending cases as one- time measure which has not been done in the present case. 8. Consequently, the Court is of the view that this writ petition should be dis posed of with the direction for due consideration of the cases of the petitioner s in the next meeting of the District Level Selection Committee of Morigaon Dist rict. [13] The petitioners have asserted that they had made applications fo r consideration of their cases on compassionate ground and thereafter, also resp onded to the advertisement issued by the respondents clearly indicating therein that candidatures would be accepted for compassionate appointment as well, again st 5% of the vacancies. The respondents having accepted the candidatures of the petitioners and having allowed them to participate in the selection process coul d not have denied consideration of their cases on the aforesaid ground of penden cy of their applications for more than three and half years. If, at all, there w as any delay towards consideration of the case of the petitioners, same was not attributable to the the petitioners. The respondents after having invited the pe titioners to participate in the particular selection process and they having suc cessfully come out in the selection process could not have taken the view that t hey are not entitled to get appointment since their applications were pending fo r more than 3 and half years. [14] The petitioners responded to the particular advertisement by whi ch it was made known that there would be consideration for appointment on compas sionate ground. There was legitimate expectation on their part for a fair consid eration. With that expectation they appeared in the selection and as per the aff idavit filed by the respondents they were also selected in this selection. Howev er, said selection was set at naught by the State Level Committee on the aforesa id ground. It is in this context Mr. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner h as argued on the principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence. [15] For all the aforesaid reasons, I find sufficient force in the c ase of the petitioners and accordingly, this writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to appropriately consider the case of the petitioners for appoin tment as Constables on compassionate ground. In this connection, the stand of th e respondents in Paragraph-3 of the counter-affidavit is quoted below : 3. That in regard to the statement made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition the deponent states that after completion of recruitment process a selection list w as prepared by the Selection Board of Nagaon District and the list was sent to S tate Level Police Recruitment Board, Guwahati for appointment where 10 nos. of c andidates including the petitioners were selected on compassionate ground . (Emp hasis supplied). [16] From the above what is seen is that the petitioners have been selected for appointment on compassionate ground. Since the only ground on which the State Level Committee rejected the case of the selected candidates has been interfered with, the respondents shall now take necessary follow up action towa rds appointment of the petitioners on the basis of their selection in the afores aid selection. [16] Whatever necessary consequential action is required to be followed by th e respondents towards appointment of the petitioners, same shall be so followed and completed as expeditiously as possible but at any rate not later than 31st M ay, 2010.