WA 14/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE IA ANSARI THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE CR SARMA Heard Mr. IH Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. A Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Heard also Mr. R Adhikari, learned Government Advocate, for the responde nt No.5, and Mr. MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the private respondent Nos. 6 to 10. The appellant herein came to this Court with a writ application, made under Arti cle 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate direction to be issued to the State respondents to consider the appellant’s case for appointment, unde r the relevant scheme, meant for making compassionate appointment, the appellant ’s case being that his father while working as Headmaster of Chirakhowa MV Schoo l, Dhubri, died in harness on 29-03-2008 and the present appellant applied for a ppointment on compassionate ground, but his case was not being considered by the respondents in accordance with law. The writ petition gave rise to WP(C) No. 50 43 of 2009, which was disposed of, on 20-11-2009, with direction to the responde nts to examine the petitioner’s case in terms of the guidelines formulated in Ac hyut Ranjan Das & ors. -vs- State of Assam & ors, reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674. The appellant’s case was, thereafter, considered by the District Level Committee and on the ground that the income of the appellant’s family was higher than the income of the other candidates, who are private respondents herein, the Distric t Level Committee (in short, ’DLC’), instead of recommending the name of the app ellant, recommended the name of the private respondents. Aggrieved by the decisi on, so arrived at by the DLC and the recommendations made in favour of the priva te respondents, the appellant filed another writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 6181 of 2010. The second writ petition came to be disposed of, on 22-11-2010, by a learned Sin gle Judge of this Court on the ground that compassionate appointment is not a so urce of recruitment; rather, it is an exception to the general recruitment and t hat an appointment on compassionate ground, is made consideration of financial h ardship of the family of the deceased and that there is no hard and fast rule th at each and every candidate shall have to be appointed if he is, otherwise, cove red by the scheme of compassionate appointment and that such appointments are re quired to be made by taking into account various parameters and yardstick. In th e present case, the case of the writ petitioner (i.e. of the present appellant) was considered by the DLC and having found other candidates more suitable for ap pointment than the writ petitioner (i.e., the present appellant), recommended th e name of the present respondent for appointment, on compassionate ground and, h ence, no interference is legally permissible with the recommendation made by the DLC. Aggrieved by the decision so reached and the dismissal of his writ petitio n, the writ petitioner has preferred this appeal. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that it is not in dis pute at the Bar that the appointment on compassionate ground is required to be c onsidered in terms of the guidelines, which has been issued in Achyut Ranjan Das (supra). In fact, as already indicated above, the direction, whereby the petiti oner’s earlier writ petition was disposed of, required the State respondents to consider the case of the petitioner/appellant in terms of the guidelines, which have been laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das (supra). It needs to be pointed out tha t Clause (v) of the guidelines, in the decision Achyut Ranjan Das (supra), state as follows: V. The District Level Committee will decide as to who amongst the eligible cand idates is entitled to compassionate appointment. To the extent possible such app ointments will be recommended to be made within the District. In marking the rec ommendations for appointments, the District Level Committee will take into accou nt the financial condition of the family of the deceased and on a relative consi deration of the cases will make its recommendation. There will be no selection a nd seniority of the claim will not be resorted to unless two or more eligible candidates are at par. From a bare reading of the above guidelines, it becomes abundantly clear that th e seniority of claim would become relevant only when the candidate is, otherwise , more suitable than others. In the present case, the comparative statement of i ncome, which the DLC has prepared, reflects as under: Name Gratuity Amount received/receivable Family pension Dalimi Roy Prodhani 90268.00 2015.00 Dharam Kr. Adhikary 97000.00 2060.00 Rahman Ali Sk. 178809.00 3425.00 Rezaul Karim Sk. 130348.00 ----- Iltaf Hussain 97392.00 2060.00 Abdus Sattar 243295.00 3800.00 From a careful examination of the comparative statement of income, which has bee n made by the DLC, it becomes clear that the appellant’s income is much higher t han the income of the others. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. IH Saikia, learned counsel submits th at the DLC made a mistake in taking into account the gratuity, which the appella nt’s father received. Suffice it to point out, in this regard, that the selectio n has not been made on the basis of gratuity, which was granted to the appellant ’s family. What was taken into account was the relative income of the families c oncerned and since it was found that the income received by the appellant’s fami ly is higher than those of other candidates, the case of the appellant was not r ecommended. We find no infirmity, legal or factual, in the criterion, which had been applied by the State respondents for the purpose of making recommendations. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we find no merit in t his appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.