WA 145/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY (By Ranjan Gogoi, J.) Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. VM T homas, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department appearing for the responde nts. This appeal is directed against an order dated 3.7.2009 passed in M.C. N o.1749 of 2009 arising out of W.P.(C) No.1238 of 2009. By the said order, the le arned Single Judge, on the grounds and reasons assigned, had refused to recall a n earlier order dated 17.06.2009 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petit ioner-appellant for non-prosecution. From a reading of the order dated 3.7.2009, it is obvious that the learn ed Single Judge came to the conclusion that the grounds assigned for the absence of the counsel of the appellant-writ petitioner in Court on 17.6.2009 leading to the dismissal of the writ petition for non-prosecution did not furnish satisf actory and cogent grounds for recall of the order dated 17.6.2009. That apart, t he learned Single Judge also came to the conclusion that the claim made in the w rit petition being for compassionate appointment following the death of the appe llant’s father in the year 1996, ought not to be considered by the Court at the belated stage when the writ petition had come up for hearing. In so far as the explanations furnished by the appellant for the absence of his counsel in Court on 17.6.2009 is concerned, the same was not considered satisfactory and adequate by the learned Single Judge, who, thereafter, proceede d to hold that the claim in the writ petition for compassionate appointment cann ot be considered after 14 years of the death of the father of the claimant-writ petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated 17.6.2009 dismissing the writ petition for non-prosecution was maintained. The averments made in M.C. No.1749 of 2009 showing reasons for the absen ce of the appellant’s counsel in Court on 17.6.2009 have been placed before us. The learned counsel for the appellant has also taken us through the averments ma de in the writ petition and the prayers made therein wherein an alternative pray er was made by the petitioner for his appointment on the basis of a claimed sele ction of the year 1999. Reading the order dated 3.7.2009 passed in Misc. Case No .1749 of 2009, we find that the aforesaid claim made in the writ petition was ig nored by the learned Single Judge and the claim for compassionate appointment al one was taken into account while recording the conclusion in the order dated 3.7 .2009 that the writ petition ought not to be restored to file. The above facts demonstrate that a vital aspect of the matter was not co nsidered by the learned Single Judge. We have also perused the grounds and expla nation offered by the appellant for the non-appearance of the counsel on 17.6.20 09. The appellant cannot be made to suffer on account of the lapses of his couns el. We are, therefore, of the view that Writ Petition (C) No.1238 of 2009 dismis sed for non-prosecution on 17.6.2009 ought to be restored to its original number and the same should be adjudicated upon on merit. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the order dated 3.7.2009 p assed by the learned Single Judge in M.C. No.1749 of 2009 and direct for listing of the case for hearing before the appropriate Single Bench. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.