WP(C) 954/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Head Mr. PK Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. BJ Ghosh, learned State counsel as well as Mr. K Das, learned SC, BTA D. Considering the grievance raised in this petition and as agreed to by th e learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is being dispose d of at the motion stage itself. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is an educate d unemployed widow and hails from a very poor family. The husband of the petitio ner Late Bhadreswar Sutradhar, who was serving as Gramsevak, died in harness on 2.1.06 leaving behind the petitioner and two minor sons. After demise of her hus band, as there is no other earning member in her family, petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment before respondent No.5 on 30.1.06. Th e said application was forwarded to respondent No.3 by respondent No.5. But, whe n the said application evoked no response, petitioner approached this Court by f iling a writ petition being WP(C) No.1100/2006 and this Court vide judgment and order dated 3.8.06 disposed of the said writ petition alongwith 162 analogous wr it petitions laying down certain guidelines for appointment on compassionate gro und. Then the petitioner submitted a representation alongwith the certified copy of the said judgment and order. But, on 8.10.09, in the meeting of the District Level Selection Committee (’DLC’ for short) the petitioner’s candidature for se lection was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had submitted her applica tion after five months from the date of death of her husband and the petitioner was not intimated about the rejection of her candidature. She could come to know only when she came to the office of the respondent authorities and immediately thereafter, she submitted a representation before the respondent No.4 to review her candidature since she had submitted the application within a month from the date of death of her husband and not after five months as opined by the DLC. But , till date, the said representation has not been disposed of. Hence, the instan t writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused t he materials available on record. In view of the above and considering the matter in its entirety, this writ petit ion is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4, the Deputy Commissio ner-cum-Chairman, to take up the matter afresh considering the fact that the pet itioner submitted her application for appointment on compassionate ground on 30. 1.06, i.e. within one month from the date of death of her husband, inasmuch as, her husband died on 2.1.06 whereas her application was rejected on the ground th at the same was filed after five months from the date of death of her husband. This Court hope and trust that the respondent authorities, particularly, the respondent No.4 shall consider the case of the petitioner afresh in the nex t meeting of the DLC to be held and communicate the decision of the DLC to the p etitioner forthwith in her given address. The petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court if aggrieved by the order to be passed by the DLC. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.