WP(C) 5974/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. H. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well a s Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel. The prayer of the petitioner is for consideration of her case fo r compassionate appointment, She has challenged the Annexure-B minutes of the St ate Level Selection Committee dated 24.8.2011, by which, her case has been rejec ted on ground of late submission of the application/being over aged. Although in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated about death of her father while in service, but there is no indication a s to when he died. On being asked, Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner died on 11.2.1991. Thus, by now, abou t 21 years have gone by since the father of the petitioner died. After long 21 y ears, there cannot be any ground for compassionate appointment. As regards late submission of application, the petitioner has stated in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that immediately after death of her father, she had made the applicati on for appointment in Grade-III or IV posts, but no material particular has been disclosed as to when such application was made. Needless to say that compassionate appointment is not a source o f recruitment. After long 21 years have gone by since the father of the petition er died. Compassionate appointment is provided to redeem a family in distress. I f a considerable period of time got lapsed normally a presumption is drawn that the family without the sole bread earner could survive. After long 21 years, if the case of the petitioner is directed t o be considered afresh, same will be antithesis to the very concept of compassio nate appointment. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the wr it petition and accordingly it is dismissed.