WP(C) 4091/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A.M. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate groun d. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside and quashing of the minutes of the DLC meeting held on 23.6.2011, by which while rejecting his claim, the re spondents No. 6 & 7 were recommended for compassionate appointment. The father of the petitioner while was serving as Peon in the particular establishment at Hailakandi, died on 16.12.1997. Thus, by now about 14 years ha ve elapsed. Apart from the fact that compassionate appointment is not a source o f recruitment, the same is considered by way of providing immediate financial as sistance of the family in need. As has been held by the Apex Court in numerous o ccasion if a considerable period of time is elapsed, a presumption is always dra wn that the family could survive without the financial assistance. Moreover, oth er host of factors such as income of the family, dependent members are also requ ired to be considered. After long 14 years of expiry of the father of the petiti oner, he cannot claim his appointment on compassionate ground as a matter of rig ht. The petitioner has projected his case as that of a regular selection and drawing of merit list. In this connection, he has referred to the Annexure-2 st atement, so as to contend that his name being at Sl. No.2, well ahead of the res pondents No. 6 & 7, his case ought to have been given preference. Annexure-2 is not a merit list but only a statement of names, who have a pplied for compassionate appointment. The DLC in its meeting held on 23.6.2011, while accepting the cases of r espondents No. 6 & 7, rejected the case of the petitioner on the grounds assigne d in the said minutes, which is Could not be considered for want of criteria of vacancy under scheme & since it could not be considered within the stipulated t ime, it spent its force. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the bread ear ner in respect of the respondents No. 6 & 7 expired after the expiry of the fath er of the petitioner, his case ought to have been preferred. I am afraid, such a n argument is not acceptable. Compassionate appointment is provided to redeem th e family in distress. After long 14 years of expiry of the father of the petitio ner, there I no question of providing compassionate appointment. In the event of providing the desired appointment to the petitioner, same would be anti-thesis to the very concept of the compassionate. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.