WA 183/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. GOSWAMI Notice. Learned State counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 16.5.2011 passed by the learned Sin gle Judge in WP(C) 3450/2009. The appellant had applied for appointment on compassionate ground since his fath er had died in harness on 14.2.2003 while working as a Police Constable under th e Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi. In the writ petition, the appellant ment ioned that his father left behind only one son that is the appellant before us, one daughter and wife and mother. On the basis of this application and on the basis of the contents of the writ pe tition, the learned Single Judge issued notice to the respondents. The respondents entered appearance and filed an affidavit in opposition stating that in fact the appellant’s father had two wives, both of whom were alive and h e had four daughters and one son that is the appellant before us. In other words , the appellant’s father left behind seven legal heirs apart from the mother. In view of the fact that the appellant had not come to the Court with clean hand s not having stated the full facts of the case more particularly the fact that h is father left behind another wife and three more daughters, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had suppresse d material facts. Insofar as the daughters of one of the wives of the appellant’s father are conce rned, they are apparently being looked after by the relatives and the fourth dau ghter that is the sister of the appellant, is staying with the appellant and his mother. As such, it is possible that the daughters of the deceased had no inter est in applying for appointment on compassionate ground. This aspect of the matt er was not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge in deciding whet her the concealment of facts is material to the decision of the writ petition o r not. In the circumstances, we of the view that the learned Single Judge erred in dism issing the writ petition solely on the ground of concealment of material facts, particularly in a matter of this nature involving an appointment on compassionat e grounds. The learned Single Judge has gone a little further by directing that the applica tion of the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground will not be consid ered by the respondents. We are of the opinion that this direction of the learne d Single Judge was unnecessary without even determining whether the case of the appellant is genuine or not. The learned Single Judge has directed payment of costs of ‘2500/- which will be paid to the High Court Mediation Centre. Learned counsel for the appellant says that costs will be paid by his client within a month from today. We are told by learned counsel for the appellant that his application for appoin tment on compassionate ground is already pending with the respondents. Subject t o proof of payment of costs to be furnished by learned counsel for the appellant , the respondents will consider the application on merits and in accordance with law. The appeal is partly allowed. No further order is required to be passed in this writ appeal.