WP(C) 4733/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Saiki a, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam. The petitioner is an aspirant for appointment on compassionate ground. The husba nd of the petitioner while was serving as driver under the Commissioner of Taxes , Government of Assam died on 8.9.2006. The petitioner, his wife, made an applic ation for compassionate appointment. Her case was recommended by the District Le vel Committee against a Grade-III post (Driver). On the other hand, the case of the petitioner is that she being a lady, cannot take up driving and that she is ready to accept any job either in Grade-III or Grade-IV other than the post of d river. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam by referring to the wr itten instruction furnished to him by the Government of Assam in the Finance (Ta xation) Department and the documents enclosed therewith submits that pursuant to the recommendation made by the District Level Committee and the State Level Com mittee in its meeting held on 10.3.2008 and 5.8.2008 the case of the petitioner has been considered but could not recommend her case as her case was recommended by the District Level Committee against Grade-III post. On the other hand, the plea of the petitioner is for consideration of her case even against Grade-IV po st. Considering the matter in its entirety, I dispose of the writ petition providing that the District Level Committee and State Level Committee may carry out a rev iew of the case of the petitioner for consideration of her case favourably eithe r against Grade-III or IV post. Let entire exercise shall be carried out as expeditiously as possible, preferabl y within three months. At this stage, Mr. Chouhan. learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the stand of the respondents that her case was considered only in respect of Zone-A, submits that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered against th e vacancies for the entire district. On the other hand, Mr. Saikia submits that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered only zone wise and not d istrict wise. No opinion is expressed in this regard. The matter is left open to the sound dis cretion of the respondents towards consideration of the case of the petitioner f avourably. Writ petition is disposed of.