WP(C) 1073/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the denia l of compassionate appointment for which she had applied before the concerned St ate authorities. I have heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner an d Dr. Ahmed, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department, Government of Assa m. None appears for the respondent No. 6. According to the petitioner, her husband having died on 30/10/20 02, she applied for compassionate appointment. While the process was almost comp lete it had to be restarted in view of the decision of this Court rendered in Ac hyut Ranjan Das versus State of Assam and others, 2006 (4) GLT 674, laying down the guidelines for processing applications for compassionate appointments. The r espondent No. 6 also had meanwhile applied for compassionate appointment against a Grade III post. The establishment of the Superintending Engineer, Guwahati Me chanical Circle (Irrigation), Guwahati, on receipt of the applications processed the same and placed those before the District Level Committee, Guwahati, which in turn recommended the cases of the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner for Gra de-III and Grade-IV post respectively. The State Level Committee in its meeting held on 1/2/2008 being of the view that the recommendation of the name of the pe titioner for Grade IV post was in excess of the 5% vacancies available for compa ssionate appointment declined to approve the recommendation of the District Leve l Committee. The recommendation vis-à-vis the respondent No. 3 was, however, acc epted. Being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court. The respondent No. 2 and 6 in their separate affidavits have reiterated the grou nd as recorded by the State Level Committee in its aforesaid minutes in refusing to accommodate the petitioner in Grade-IV post for compassionate appointment. T he respondent No. 6 in particular has additionally asserted that the petitioner is not possessed of the requisite qualification for a Grade-III post. According to her, whereas the petitioner has passed only H.S.L.C. examination and is defic ient in academic qualification for the said post, she has passed in P.U. and the refore being eligible has been recommended for appointment. On a pointed query made by this Court, Mr. Ahmed has failed to e stablish that the academic qualification for appointment to Grade III post invol ved is a matriculation i.e. H.S.L.C. In the above view of the matter and on a co nsideration of the pleaded cases and the materials on record and also the nature of appointment, which the petitioner seeks, in the opinion of this Court, no gr ound is discernible to justify interference as sought for. The petition lacks in merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.