WP(C) 5228/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY JUDGMENT & ORDER (oral) The petitioner, whose name was sponsored by the Employment Excha nge for selection to the post of Forma Carrier as well as the Counter in Assam G overnment Press, by the present petition has challenged the list dated 6th Decem ber, 2008 published by the Director of Printing and Stationary, Government of As sam, selecting the candidates for practical test for the posts of Forma Carrier as well as Counter and also praying for a direction to the State respondents to consider his case for appointment as Forma Carrier in the Assam Government Press , on compassionate ground. 2. The Director, Printing and Stationary notified certain vacancies to the Director of Employment and Craftsman Training, Assam vide communication dated 17th April, 2008 requesting to sponsor the names for selection against 1 ( one) post of Junior Mechanic, 9 (nine) posts for Forma Carrier, 1 (one) post of Paste-up-Artist and 6 (six) posts of Counter in Assam Government Press. The Empl oyment Exchange sponsored the names of the petitioner as well as the present res pondents alongwith others and accordingly interview was conducted on different d ates between 17th November, 2008 and 25th November, 2008. Records reveal that o n the basis of the performance of different candidates in such interview, a list was prepared and published by the Director of Printing and Stationary on 10th D ecember, 2008 containing the names of candidates found suitable for practical te st, wherein the names of the private respondents appeared. The petitioner’s nam e, however, does not find place in such list. 3. Prior to sponsoring his name for selection against the aforesaid posts, pursuant to the notification of the vacancies by the Director of Printin g and Stationary, the petitioner in the year 2003 filed an application for consi deration of his case for compassionate appointment in terms of the Scheme formul ated by the Government of Assam in that respect, as the petitioner’s father, who was working as the Binder Grade-I in Assam Government Press died in harness on 30th April, 2002. Since the petitioner’s case was not considered, he filed a wr it petition, which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.8294/2003, praying fo r a direction to the respondents therein to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 2 6th September, 2003 directing the respondents therein to consider the case of th e petitioner in terms of the policy decision taken by the Government of Assam in that regard. The Director of Printing and Stationary thereafter, passed an ord er on 1st April, 2006 intimating the petitioner that his case would be considere d in due course, as there are other persons, who have earlier applied for appoin tment on compassionate ground. According to the petitioner, instead of consider ing his case for appointment on compassionate ground, the process of selection w as initiated by the Director of Printing and Stationary, which culminated in pre paration and publication of the aforesaid list dated 6th December, 2008. The pe titioner, therefore, has prayed for the reliefs, as noticed above. 4. I have heard Mr. C. Baruah, the learned counsel for the petition er and Mr. B.J. Ghosh, the learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent No s.1 and 2 as well as Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for th e newly impleaded respondent Nos.3 to 8, who have been impleaded vide order date d 29th July, 2009 passed in Misc. Case No.1182/2009. 5. Mr. Baruah, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he applied for appointment on compassionate ground and this Court vide ord er dated 26th September, 2003 directed the State respondents to consider his cas e for such appointment, the respondent authorities are duty bound to consider th e case before initiating any process for selection, as has been done in the inst ant case. According to Mr. Baruah, though he appeared in the selection pursuant to the process initiated by the Director, his case for appointment on compassio nate ground has to be considered, he having applied for the same, even though hi s name does not appear in the list prepared by the authority on the basis of the merit, i.e. on the basis of the marks secured in such interview. Mr. Baruah, th erefore, submits that the necessary directions may be issued to the respondent a uthorities to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the policy decision taken by the Government in that regard, which, according to Mr. Baruah, has not been done till date by the authority, as reflected in th e communication dated 1st April, 2006 issued by the Director of Printing and Sta tionary. 6. Mr. Ghosh, the learned State Counsel appearing for the responden t Nos.1 and 2 placing reliance on the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposit ion has submitted that the petitioner has not been selected in the selection pro cess initiated vide communication dated 17th April, 2008 issued to the Employmen t Exchange requesting sponsoring of the names, as he did not fair well in the in terview conducted for that purpose. It has further been submitted that he havin g not been selected for appointment in such interview conducted, is not entitled to be called for practical test. It has also been submitted by Mr. Ghosh that in the writ petition filed, except making a very vague statement in paragraph 15 , nothing has been stated why and on what ground the selection made has been cha llenged. Mr. Ghosh, however, has submitted that since the petitioner has filed t he application seeking appointment on compassionate ground, the same has to be c onsidered by the authority, which in fact has also been reflected in the communi cation dated 1st April, 2006 issued by the Director of Printing and Stationary. Mr. Ghosh in this connection further submits that such consideration for appoin tment on compassionate ground has to be considered in terms of the decision of t his Court in Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. -Vs- State of Assam & Ors. reported in 200 6 (4) GLT 674. 7. Mr. Mazumdar, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the responde nt Nos.3 to 8 has submitted that the said respondents cannot have any objection for consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground provided he fulfills all criteria for such appointment. Mr. Mazumdar sub mits that the petitioner having participated in the selection process initiated by issuing the communication dated 17th April, 2008 and having not faired well, cannot challenge the selection process on the ground that his case for appointme nt on compassionate ground has not been considered, that too, as the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim appointment in a particular post under the S cheme for appointment on compassionate ground. Mr. Mazumdar further submits tha t though the petitioner has challenged the selection process, which culminated i n preparation and publication of the list, there is not even a whisper in the wr it petition about the grounds on which such select list published has been chall enged, except making the statement that the respondents are the favorite and the re are more meritorious candidates than the respondents. According to Mr. Mazumd ar, the petitioner even does not claim that he is meritorious than the responden ts. Mr. Mazumdar, therefore, submits that on the basis of such vague statement, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as claimed in the writ petition, i n so far as he has challenged the list published. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings of the parties including the documents a nnexed thereto as Annexures. 9. The facts narrated above are not in dispute. The names of the p etitioner and the respondent Nos.3 to 8 alongwith others were sponsored by the E mployment Exchange for selection to the post of Forma Carrier and Counter. The c andidates were interviewed between 17th November, 2008 and 25th November, 2008 a nd thereafter, the list was published, wherein, though the names of the responde nt Nos.3 to 8 appear, the name of the petitioner does not find place. 10. The petitioner has challenged such list only on the ground state d in paragraph 15 of the writ petition stating that the respondents are favorite candidates and they are less meritorious than some other candidates. The petit ioner even do not assert that he is more meritorious than the respondents, thoug h it may not be the ground for setting aside the selection process and the list prepared on the basis of the interview conducted. Such vague statement cannot be the basis for interference of the selection process as well as the list prepare d on the basis of such selection. Moreover, the petitioner, who claims for appoi ntment on the basis of the Scheme formulated for appointment on compassionate gr ound, cannot claim appointment against any particular post. 11. That being the position, the challenge made by the petitioner to the list as well as the selection process cannot be accepted and hence rejected . 12. As noticed above, the petitioner has claimed appointment on comp assionate ground for which he stated to have filed an application sometimes in t he year 2003. It also appears that this Court vide order dated 26th September, 2003 passed in WP(C) No.8294/2003 directed consideration of the case of the peti tioner on compassionate ground, pursuant to which, the Director of Printing and Stationary passed an order on 1st April, 2006 to the effect that the case of the petitioner would be considered in due course as there are certain other applica nts, who have also filed applications seeking appointment on compassionate groun d. In Achyut Ranjan Das (supra) this Court, while dealing with the issue relati ng to the claim for appointment on compassionate ground, has laid down the guide line and the procedure to be adopted for such consideration, in paragraph 7 ther eof, which are reproduced below:- I. All pending applications against existing and available vacancies as per the quota earmarked including the cases of the petitioners in the present cases and all others, who may not be before the Court, shall be decided in accordance with the proposed directions to be laid down in the present order and also in a ccordance with the principles noted in the preceding paragraphs of this order. This will be done within a period of 4 (four) months from today. The present di rection naturally has to be considered as a one-time measure in view of the subs equent direction as laid down in the succeeding paragraphs. II. The District Head of each Department will intimate the vacancies as and when such vacancies occur, to the Court Appointed District Level Committees for its scrutiny. There will be no delay in such intimation. III. The District Level Committee will be constituted by the Deputy Commissio ner of the District and the Superintendent of Police. The Deputy Commissioner hi mself will sit in the Committee. The District Head(s) of such departments in wh ich vacancies are available shall be co-opted as the Additional Members of the C ommittee. IV. The District Level Committee will meet once every 2 (two) months on the last Saturday of the second month. V. The District Level Committee will decide as to who amongst the eligible candidates is entitled to compassionate appointment. To the extent possible suc h appointments will be recommended to be made within the District. In marking th e recommendations for appointments, the District Level Committee will take into account the financial condition of the family of the deceased and on a relative consideration of the cases will make its recommendation. There will be no selec tion and ’seniority of the claim’ will not be resorted to unless two or more eli gible candidates are at par. VI. To decide on the question of financial status of the family of a claimant re gard will be had to the following factors as laid down in G.M. Vs. Kunti Tiwari (supra) (a) Gratuity amount received/receivable. (b) Family pension payable. (c) Provident Fund Amount received/receivable. (d) Any ex-gratia payment made or payable. (e) Proceeds of LIC Policy and other investments of the deceased. (f) Income of the family from other sources. (g) Employment of other family members. (h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any. VII. The recommendations of the District Level Committee will be considered by a State Level Committee consisting of the Chief Secretary and the Senior Financia l Commissioner of the Sate. The Commissioner and Secretary of the Department(s) in which vacancies are available will be co-opted as Additional Members of the S tate Level Committee. VII. The State Level Committee will meet once every 3 (three) months. IX. All vacancies available against the quota of compassionate appointment must be filled up within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of occurrence of th e vacancy in accordance with the present directions. X. If the applications of eligible candidates remain pending and cannot be consi dered due to want of vacancies for a period of 2 (two) years from the date of ma king such applications, all such applications will require no further considerat ion and must be understood to have spent their force. 13. Since the petitioner’s case is yet to be considered, as reflecte d from the communication dated 1st April, 2006 issued by the Director of Printin g and Stationary, his case is required to be considered for appointment on compa ssionate ground strictly in terms of the policy decision taken by the Government of Assam, as reflected in various Office Memorandums issued for that purpose as well as in terms of the directions contained in Achyut Ranjan Das case. 14. In view of the above, while refusing to interfere with the selec tion process initiated for the purpose of selection of candidate to the post of Forma Carrier and Counter as well as the list prepared and published by the Dire ctor of Printing and Stationary, this writ petition is disposed of with a direct ion to the respondent No.2, Director of Printing and Stationary, to take further required steps for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner f or appointment on compassionate ground, in terms of the policy decision of the G overnment of Assam as well as the directions contained in Achyut Ranjan Das case . The Committee constituted for that purpose shall scrutinize the claim of the petitioner alongwith others, strictly in terms of the aforesaid policy decision and the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment and order passed by this Court. Such consideration shall be made within a period of 2 (two) months from today. In case, the petitioner is found to be not entitled for such considera tion, in terms of the aforesaid policy decision and the decision of this Court, the authority shall intimate the reason(s) to the petitioner. 15. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost.