WP(C) 3227/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. . Heard Mr. B. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as M r. D.R. Gogoi, learned counsel representing the Respondent No.3. I have also hea rd Mr. S.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Education. 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 against the vacant post of Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C) in Anandaram Dhekial P hookan College, Nagaon. The prayer so made is account of death of the father of the petitioner Sri Amburam Chamuah, who died-in- harness on 1.2.2007. He was se rving in the college as Cashier. After such death of the father of the petition er, the petitioner approached the Principal of the college, who is ex-officio Se cretary of the Governing Body of the college for consideration of his case for a ppointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner made Annexure-’E’ applicatio n dated 19.2.2007. Thereafter, once again the petitioner made Annexure-’F’ appl ication in the prescribed format and submitted the same to the Principal of the college i.e. the Respondent No.3. The petitioner also made Annexure-’G’ applicat ion dated 3.5.2007 to the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, who is also Chairman of t he Governing Body of the college. When no action was taken on the basis of the said representations made by the petitioner, he approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3, a strange stand has been taken as regards the application submitted by the petitioner. As per t he said affidavit, the Principal of the college on receipt of the application fr om the petitioner, had advised him to submit the same to the Governing Body of t he college. He also advised the petitioner to apply for the post, which was adve rtised for regular selection. Such advertisement was through the Employment Exch ange and candidatures were invited through the Employment Exchange. As regards the application submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, it is t he stand of the Respondent No.3 that he was not aware of the representation subm itted to the Deputy Commissioner. Unfortunately, in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3, he has also remarked against the late father of the peti tioner. According to the Respondent No.3, the father of the petitioner had enoug h land and the job in the college was just like a passed time and that whatever he used to earn as salary from the college, the same is just a peanut in augment ing the family chest. Such comment made by the Respondent No.3 is clearly in bad taste and unbecoming on the part of the Principal of the college, who is also e x-officio Secretary of the Governing Body of the college. The father of the petitioner having died in harness, the petitioner is e ntitled to get his case considered as per the guidelines framed in Achyut Ranjan Das v. State of Assam & Ors, reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674. The advice of the Pr incipal i.e. the Respondent No.3 to the petitioner to apply as a local candidate was not in the spirit of the scheme for compassionate appointment. The compassionate appointment is provided to redeem a family in distress and the authority must consider the case of such applicant with all seriousness within the parameter and yardstick laid down in t he aforesaid scheme. In this connection, Mr. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case, the Schemes of 1993 and 2003 are a pplicable. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the re spondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionat e ground as per the guidelines in the aforesaid Achyut Ranjan Das case. Writ petition is disposed of.