WP(C) 3762/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY This is the fourth round of litigation of the petitioner in pursuit of compassio nate appointment under the extant State policy. I have heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.N. G oswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam for the official r espondents No. 1,2 & 4. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered necessary to issue for mal notice to the other respondents. The pleadings on record reveal that on the demise of his father on 02.05.2003, w ho at his death was serving as Assistant Teacher in 79 Matingram L.P. School, Ha ilakandi, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. As it lay unatte nded, he instituted WP(C) No.5346/2003, which was disposed of on 18.07.2003 wit h a direction to the official respondents to consider his case as per the govern ment circular dated 17.02.2000 dealing with compassionate appointment and in vog ue at that time. According to the petitioner, his case was thereafter considered on 20.02.2004 by the District Level Committee, Hailakandi, which recommended hi s candidature for compassionate appointment. As a stalemate still followed, eve n thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court with WP(C) No.1746/2008 which came to be disposed of on 17.12.2008 with a direction to complete the process a lready underway in terms of the judgment and order rendered in Achyut Ranjan Das vs. state of Assam and ors, (2006) 4 GLT 674. In that order, the recommendation dated 20.02.2004 of the District Level Committee, Hailakandi for his such appoi ntment was taken note of. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the recommendation of other candidates similarly situated to his exclusion, the petitioner instituted WP(C) No.4152/2008 seeking redressal of his grievance. He also instituted Cont. Case (C) No.340/2009 alleg ing deliberate violation of the order dated 17.12.2008 passed in WP (C) No.1746/ 2008 and on 04.09.2009 a notice was issued therein. By judgment and order dated 02.07.2010 passed in WP(C) No.4152/2008 this Court directed consideration of pe nding cases latest by 30.10.2010. Meanwhile, on 05.03.2010 the District Level Committee, Hailakandi again recomme nded the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. As the State Lev el Committee (for short hereinafter also referred to as SLC) on 16.03.2011 inspi te of the above rejected the petitioner’s candidature on the ground of late sub mission of application he is before this Court. Mr. Choudhury has urged that in view of the run up of facts to this petition, a writ of mandamus ought to be issued to direct the respondents to provide compass ionate appointment to the petitioner forthwith. According to him, the ground of rejection of his candidature is non est in law having regard to the fact that w ithin a couple of months of the demise of his father the petitioner had submitte d his application for compassionate appointment as would be apparent from the or der dated 18.07.2003 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.5346/2003, Mr. Goswami o n the other hand has urged that though the ground of belated submission of the a pplication is not very convincing, no direction for his compassionate appointm ent ought to be made and the issue ought to be left with the SLC for a fresh con sideration of his case. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded facts and the documents annexed therewith available on record, this Court consider it appropriate to close this proceeding with a direction the responden ts, more particularly the State Level Committee represented by the Chairman & Ch ief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam to reconsider the petitioner’s case for comp assionate appointment on merits. The Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi would take necessary steps to ensure that the petitioner’s case alongwith all relevant rec ords is placed before the State Level Committee in its next meeting to take an a ppropriate decision on his candidature. It is made clear that the ground of lat e submission of his application has not weighed with the Court and therefore the State Level Committee while scrutinizing his application would do so dehors the same. As the petitioner is waiting in expectation since long, it is expected that the SLC would take its decision on the issue unfailingly in its next meeting and com municate it in writing to the petitioner immediately thereafter. As sufficient delay has intervened, the State Level Committee would endeavour to dispose of th e matter at the earliest. No costs.