‘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,’ observes Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench on July 6.
• Terms implementation of 2019 Addendum unacceptable
• Directs for fresh applicants list implemented prospectively
Morung Express News
Dimapur | July 7
In a significant judgement, the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench has recently ‘deprecated’ the process of compassionate appointment scheme by the Nagaland Government, specifically in the Home Department and termed the implementation of an Addendum dated 09.04.2019 “unacceptable.”
In the judgement order to a writ petition to challenging the 2019 Addendum to Office Memorandum (OM) Dated 17.09.2015 on the issue, Justice Kardak Ete on July 6 expressed serious apprehension about the insincerity of the State respondents in implementing the scheme to ensure that deserving individuals are appointed.
“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,” read a judgement, with the facts of the case giving an impression that ”certain unacceptable steps seems to have been taken on the basis of the 2019 Addendum.
This cannot be permitted and those responsible must be made accountable, it asserted, adding that state of affairs would “require proper attention and deliberation of the highest executive functionaries in the State.”
The judge further noted that the essence and core consideration for making compassionate appointment is about the family in a dire financial situation and the State Government's scheme would fail if the provisions are not followed and applicants are left pending for years.
OM on compassionate appointment
As per the original OM (2015), the appointments on compassionate ground shall be given only to one of the members of the deceased employee’s family, i.e. spouse, or son, or daughter only on regular basis.
Further, it amended to limit the compassionate appointment in Group C and Group D posts, provided such appointments did not exceed 50% of the vacancies during the year.
All departments were also asked to maintain a waiting list in chronological order for such appointments and the applicant will be given waiting list number on receipt of the application.
It further provided that the upper age limit of applicants may be relaxed in exceptional cases up to a maximum of 5 years in addition to existing relaxation.
However, the 2019 Addendum provided first preference shall always be given against those who have died earlier and who fulfils all other eligibility criteria.
‘Unacceptable’ implementation
Regarding the petition concerning the Seniority List (dated 21.02.2022) of compassionate applicants in the Nagaland Police, the Court discovered that kin of individuals, who had passed away more than 30 years ago, were even allowed to submit their applications.
Further, kin who are not eligible to be appointed on compassionate appointment as per the scheme dated 2015 OM were inserted in the list.
The list also included 25 persons, not within the purview of spouse, or sons, or daughters under the compassionate scheme while four were without the status of relationship with the deceased, among others.
Incidentally, 20 new applications, as per the list, were received on the same day on 17.01.2022, whose fathers had expired way back ranging from 1991-2016.
Other discrepancies included one person who was 8 months old when his father died, while a wife was 8- year-old, when her husband reportedly expired.
On the examination of the materials on record, it reveals that the respondents have acted illegality by preparing a compassionate applicant list, the order said.
Accordingly, while observing that the impugned 2019 Addendum itself appeared to be reasonable, Judge Ete stated that the manner of implementation in the present case was “unacceptable and needs to be deprecated.”
“This Court finds sufficient force on the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that such an act of manipulation in preparing the list in the garb of implementing the impugned Addendum cannot stand good on record,” he added.
Judge Ete noted that the scope of judicial review is limited to go into the merits of the decision taken by the administrative authorities. Nevertheless, he noted that the Court is “concerned with the decision-making process” and there is no absolute bar in exercising judicial review in the matter of policy if it is arbitrary unreasonable and discriminatory.
Consequently, the Judge set aside and quashed the March 22, 2022 Seniority List as “not sustainable” but did not interfere in the Addendum itself.
Instead, he disposed of the petition with the direction to the respondent authorities – State of Nagaland, Home Commissioner, Director General Of Police and Commandant, 3rd NAP Battalion Tuensang, to strictly follow with the provisions of the 2015 OM for compassionate appointment in the State.
Further stating that the 2019 Addendum should to be implemented prospectively, the Court directed for and to compilation and publication of a fresh compassionate appointment applicants list.
Background
The case initially pertained to compassionate appointment scheme to Group-C and Group-D post by the son of a Havildar at B’ Coy Hqr. Shamator, who died in harness on October 28, 2016.
Having requisite qualification applied for appointment under the scheme, he made a representation to the DGP Nagaland on November 2016 under the 2015 OM, who forwarded the same to the Commandant, 3rd NAP Battalion for necessary action.
However, with no response even after lapse of three years, and coming to know of many appointments in the department between November 2016 to October, 2019 without considering his application, the petitioner approached the Court.
The first petition was disposed off with a direction for appointment on compassionate ground as per the scheme adopted by the State Government via 2015 OM within 2 months from 14.02.2020.
However, the petitioner approached the Court again via a contempt petition citing non-compliance of the earlier order.
During subsequent hearings and after various directions, the State respondents submitted the 2019 and 2022 Seniority Lists on 28.02.2022, both of which were challenged in the present petition.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
