WP(C) 2067/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Heard Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. K. Misra, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. The petitioner is an aspirant for appointment on compassionate ground. H is prayer for such appointment having been rejected, he has filed the instant wr it petition. The father of the petitioner died on 27.10.2004 while was serving in the particu lar school as Upper Division Assistant. From the materials on record, it appear s that the case of the petitioner was considered by the District Level Committee but could not be recommended for want of vacancy. Such consideration was made immediately after the death of the father of the petitioner. However, the petiti oner once again applied for consideration of his case vide his application dated 27.2.2007. The application was processed through the Inspector of Schools, Jor hat District Circle, Jorhat. When the matter was placed before the State Level Committee, it rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that he did not submit the application within two years of death of his father. Be it stated he re that as per the policy decision of the Government and the directions containe d in Achyut Ranjan Das v. State of Assam & Ors reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674, an application for compassionate appointment is required to be filed within two ye ars of death of the bread earner. According to the petitioner, the rejection of the case of the petitioner on the ground of non-submission of the application within two years is without any bas is inasmuch as he had submitted the application immediately after expiry of his father but could not be considered due to want of vacancy. Mr. Misra, learned Standing Counsel submits that there cannot be endless compa ssion and that after initial consideration of the case of the petitioner, there could not have been any occasion for further consideration. According to him, t he observation of the State Level Committee that the petitioner had applied afte r expiry of two years from the date of his father is in view of the fact that af ter initial rejection of the case of the petitioner, he had once again applied f or fresh consideration. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of providing that the State Level Committee may examin e the case of the petitioner strictly in terms of the guidelines formulated in A chyut Ranjan Das (supra) and in Faziron Nessa v. State of Assam & Ors, reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340. The S.L.C. may pass a reasoned order. Writ petition is disposed of.