WP(C) 513/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Kataki Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learne d Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. 2. 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. The prayer so made is on account of death of his father Late Madhab Chandra S armah, (died in harness on 24.7.2004), while serving as UDA in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Nagaon under the District Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner of t he said district. According to the petitioner, immediately after the death of hi s father, his mother had made an application dated 18.9.2004 for her appointment on compassionate ground. As per the own statement of the petitioner he was not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground when his father died as he was a miner. 3. If we go by the declaration of age made in the affidavit in support of t he writ petition, on the date of filling of the writ petition on 30.1.2009, the petitioner was 20 years of age and thus, was about 15 years of age when his fat her died. It is in this context, Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Adv ocate has referred to the decision in Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported i n (2000) 7 SCC 192, so as to contend that there cannot be any reservation for a ppointment on compassionate ground for a minor till he attain the age of majorit y. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.3, it has been state d that the case of the petitioner was considered by the District Level Committee but could not be recommended for want of vacancy against 5% quota ear-marked fo r such appointment. It has further been stated that one brother and one sister o f the petitioner are in Govt. employment and they are also working in the Regist ration office, Nagaon. Thus, according to the respondents, it is not a fit case for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. The petitioner in his reply affidavit, has stated that his aforesaid bro ther and sister are leaving separately and thus their appointments under the Gov t. cannot be a ground for denial of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner has also brought on record the advertisement (Annexure-1) to the additional affidavit, by which applications have been called for fixing the las t date as 17.8.2010. In the said advertisement, 42 vacancies have been advertise d. The posts involved are for Extra Writer. Thus, according to the petitioner, t he plea of the respondents that there is no vacancy is not correct. 6. Compassionate appointment is provided to redeem a family in distress and which is in need of immediate assistance. Apart from the fact that the compassi onate appointment is not a source of recruitment, as has been held by the Apex C ourt in number of cases there cannot be endless compassion. In the aforementione d case of Sanjay Kumar (supra), the Apex Court has held that there cannot be any reservation for compassionate appointment for a minor till he attains the age o f majority. 7. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have also denied submission of application by the mother of the petitioner immediately after expiry of his fat her. The writ Court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue any direction for appointment on compas sionate ground. Only direction can be issued is to consider the case in terms of different parameters and yardsticks applicable for such cases. 8. The case of the petitioner having been considered by the DLC against the available vacancies within the prescribed quota of 5%, it cannot be said to be a case of non-consideration of the case of the petitioner, no mandamus can be is sued for appointment of the petitioner. The prayer made in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of th e petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Such consideration having already been made, no further direction is called for. 9. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petit ion. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.