WP(C) 272/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. PK Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. MK M ishra, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, appearing on behalf of th e respondents. The six petitioners, in this writ petition are aggrieved by non-consideration of appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioners’ claim is that their cases were considered, in terms of relevant Government policy, by District level comm ittee, on 09-06-2004, and all of them were selected for appointment on compassio nate ground; but their cases have not been considered by the State Government. I n almost similar situation, the Court in its order, dated 09-09-2008, passed in W.P(C) No.1060 of 2008 directed, while disposing of the writ petition, as follow s:- Reading the aforesaid two directions issued by the Court, it clearly appears th at as a one-time measure all pending cases were required to be considered in acc ordance with the other specific directions contained in paragraph 7 of the judgm ent. Once consideration of a case as a one-time measure is over, such applicatio ns that may remain pending are not required to be considered, if a period of mor e than two years had elapsed. Taking into consideration the above observations, in W.P(C) No. 2447/08, the Cou rt further observed and directed, in the order, dated 09-09-2008, in W.P(C) 1060 /08 as follows: In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court the view taken by the State Lev el Committee cannot be sustained. The rejection of the cases of the petitioners as made by the State Level Committee are, therefore, interfered with the directi on that the cases of the petitioners will not receive de-novo consideration by t he State Level Committee in its next meeting. The writ petition, consequently, is disposed of in the above terms. In the backdrop of above facts, it is clear that the present writ petition needs to be considered by the State Level Committee in accordance with the guidelines , which have been furnished in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das and ors - Vs- State of Assam and ors, reported in 2006(4) GLT 674. With the above observations, this writ petition shall stand disposed of.