WA 165/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.D. AGARWAL (Amitava Roy, J) The challenge made herein is in respect of the judgment and order dated 23.5.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 1129/2010 declining to ent ertain the appellant/writ petitioner’s grievance against denial of his appointme nt on compassionate ground. We have heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant /writ petitioner, Mr. P.S. Deka, learned state counsel as well as Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Government of Assam. The factual background, in short, needs to be narrated. The petitioner’s pleaded version is that after the demise of his fat her, who had died in harness as Headmaster of Judhraj Khemka M.E. School, Dibrug arh district on 4.10.1997, he applied for compassionate appointment on 5.11.1997 . As his prayer remained unattended, he approached this Court with WP(C) 8244/03 which was disposed of on 26/9/2003 with a direction to the respondents therein for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment. According to him, t hough thereafter the jurisdictional District Level Committee held two meetings o n the issue, appointment to him did not follow and eventually in the year 2008, the names of respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 were recommended for compassionate appoi ntment. Being aggrieved, he approached this Court with WP(C) 1129/2010. The lear ned Single Judge declined to intervene on the ground of delay on his part in app lying for compassionate appointment. It was recorded in the impugned order that though his father had expired on 4.10.97, he had applied for compassionate appoi ntment only on 25.8.2000. While negating the petitioner’s grievance, the learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner’s case on an earlier occasion had bee n rejected on the ground of delay. In response to the query of this Court, the learned State Counsel has p roduced the relevant records with a view to demonstrate that the petitioner had in fact submitted his application for compassionate appointment on 25.8.2000 and not on 5.11.97 as claimed by him. Reference has also been made to the office me morandum No. ABP 357/80/pt/302 dated 2.3.2009 mandating submission of such appli cation within a period of three months from the death of the person concerned so as to render the same valid and entertainable in law. Proceedings of the meetin g held on 24.9.10 have also been laid for the perusal of this Court. Whereas, Mr. Chakraborty has urged that having regard to the direction of this C ourt contained in the order dated 26.9.03 passed in WP(C) 8244/03 as well as the guidelines laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors Vs. State of Assam and Ors., 20 06 (4) GLT 674, the concerned District Level Committee was bound in law to consi der the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment and that it havin g failed to do so, an appropriate direction ought to be issued by this Court, th e learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that on a cumulative reading of the decision rendered in Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors & Ors Vs. State of Assam an d Ors., 2006 (4) GLT 674 and Faziron Nessa and Ors Vs. State of Assam and Ors., 2010 4 GLT 340 together with the Office Memorandum dated 2.3.09, the relief so ught for ought not to be granted. According to them the petitioner’s claim had b een rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. We have carefully considered the pleadings of the parties and the materials avai lable on record as well the arguments advanced. To start with, the records produ ced before us though indicate that the District Elementary Education Officer, Di brugarh had on 25/8/2000 forwarded the petitioner’s application for compassionat e appointment to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, for being processe d for consideration, his application had been received by this authority on 7/8 . The application does not bear the year in which the same was made. This howev er belies the entry of 25.8.2000 to be the date of the petitioner’s application as contained in the list of proposals submitted by the District Elementary Educa tion Officer, Dibrugarh. A bare perusal of the Office Memorandum dated 2.3.2009 makes it apparent that th e same is inapplicable in the present case. This view finds ample support from t he decision of this Court rendered in Faziron Nessa and Ors. (supra). This Court in Achyut Ranjan Das and Ors.(supra) while dealing with the issue of compassionate appointment had set down elaborate guidelines for consideration o f the applications relatable thereto. Though in Clause X of paragraph 7 it had been indicated that applications of eligible candidates if remain pending and ca nnot be considered for want of vacancies for a period of two years from the date of making of the same, those would require no further consideration, it was cla rified in Ajit Pator Vs. State of Assam, 2009 (3) GLT 306 that all pending cases were to be considered in accordance with the specific direction contained in pa ragraph 7 of the judgment and that once such consideration as a one time measur e was over, the pending applications were not required to be considered, if a pe riod of more than two years have elapsed. This view has also been reiterated in Faziron Nessa and Ors. (supra). The proceedings of the jurisdictional District L evel Committee dated 24.9.2010 laid before us though indicate that the case of t he petitioner had earlier been considered but was not recommended, the reason th erefor had not been disclosed. Though his application was taken up in that meeti ng of 24.9.2010, it was not considered due to late submission thereof, the same having been made after the expiry of two years. On a cumulative consideration of the materials available on record, we are left unconvinced that the case of the petitioner had in fact been considered in the l etter and spirit of the direction contained in the order dated 26.9.2003 passed by this Court in WP' 8244/03. Even assuming that his application had been filed on 25.8.2000 though not demonstratively evident, having regard to the decision r endered in Achyut Ranjan Das and Ors.(supra), Ajit Pator(supra) as well as Fazir on Nessa and Ors(supra), we are of the view that his request could not have been turned down only on the ground of delay of submission thereof i.e. two years af ter the death of the petitioner’s father or the pendency thereof for equal or mo re number of years. This in our opinion runs contrary to the letter and spirit o f the guidelines laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das and Ors(supra) clarified in Ajit Pator(supra) and affirmed in Faziron Nessa and Ors(supra). In view of all these , we respectfully differ from the conclusion recorded in the judgment and order impugned. It is thus interfered with. While allowing the appeal, we hereby direct the respondents, more particularly, the District Level Committee, Dibrugarh to consider the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment afresh, however, strictly in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das and Ors(supra) clarified in Ajit Pator (supra) and affirmed in Faziron Nessa and Ors.(supra). As the appellant waits in expectation, the exercise as ordered should be completed within a perio d of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.