WP(C) 5114/2010 MCMCBEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B K SHARMA Heard Mr. A Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B G oswami, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department, Assam. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate groun d as his father while was working as Khalasi under the respondents died on 06.03 .1998. Thus, this writ petition has been filed after more than 12 years of expir y of the father of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner has been rejected by the State Level Committe e on the ground of delay. No fact can be attributed to such a decision arrived a t by the State Level Committee while considering the case of the petitioner. Needless to say that the compassionate appointment is not a source of re cruitment and there cannot be any endless compassion. All these aspects of the m atter have been discussed in judgment and order dated 02.07.2010 in a batch of w rit petitions, one such case being WP(C) No. 2620/2009 (Foziron Nessa Vs. State of Assam & Ors.) Law is well settled that prayer for compassionate appointment is conside red to provide immediate financial assistance to the family in distress after ex piry of the bread earner. In the instant case there is no question of appointmen t of the petitioner after more then 12 years of the expiry of his father as the purpose for which such appointment is considered and/or provided no longer exist . The Family of the deceased having survived for the last more than 12 years, a presumption will have to be drawn that the family would survive is not in need o f any assistance by way of compassionate appointment. Apart from the above, the authority has dully considered the case of the petitioner and has rejected the claim on the ground of delay. Only direction th at can be issued in writ jurisdiction is to consider the prayer for compassionat e appointment but no Mandamus can be issued for such appointment. The case of th e petitioner having been considered and rejected by the appropriate authority no further direction is required to be issued for consideration of the case of the petitioner. For all the aforesaid grounds I do not find any merit in the writ petiti on and accordingly, it is dismissed.