WP(C) 2827/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Ms. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as we ll as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassiona te ground. The prayer so made on account of death of his father while in se rvice on 26.1.2002. His father was working as Peon under the respondent No. 4. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing writ petition being WP(C) No. 7266/2003 with same prayer. The writ petition was dispo sed of by order dated 9.9.2003 directing consideration of the case of the petiti oner on the basis of the prevalent scheme and taking into account the percentage of reservation for such appointment. It was also provided that the respondents would also consider the eligibility of the petitioner and the consideration of h is case would be along with other similarly situated persons. The petitioner had also approached this Court by filing a contem pt case being COP(C) No. 149/2004, which was disposed of taking note of the fact that the case of the petitioner was placed before District Level Committee in t he year 2007. The contempt case was closed with the direction that whatever was required to be done from the end of the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur, same shou ld be done as early as possible. Now the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition claiming the aforesaid relief. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit, in whi ch it has been stated that the case of the petitioner was considered in terms of the earlier direction of this Court in WP(C) No. 7266/2003. A proposal was forw arded to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur by letter dated 17.5.2007, but no inf ormation about the outcome of such proposal was received. Thereafter when vacanc y arose on 27.12.2008, proposal was again submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur and the case of the petitioner along with others was considered by the District Level Committee in its meeting held on 18.8.2009. However, the case of the petitioner could not recommended since the Committee was entrusted to consid er the cases from 2007 onwards. The respondents in their counter affidavit have also referred to the judgment and order dated 3.8.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 3875/2005 (Achyut Ran jan Das Vs. State of Assam & Ors.), in which certain guidelines were laid down o ne of which is if the applications of eligible candidates remain pending and can not be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of 2 (two) years from th e date of making such applications, all such applications will require no furthe r consideration and must be understood to have spent their force. In the minutes of the District Level Committee meeting held on 1 8.8.2009, it was observed that the Committee was entrusted only to consider case s which were of 2007 onwards. However, nothing was indicated about the earlier p ending cases and also as to whether the said cases should be deemed to have spen t force in view of the aforesaid observation in Achyut Ranjan Das’s case. In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of providing tha t the respondents may pass appropriate order in the case of the petitioner and c ommunicate the same to him as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, not la ter than 31.7.2011.