WP(C) 5039/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr N Rajkowa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr M Khatania r, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. The petitioner is before this Court with a grievance against the inactio n on the part of the State respondents in the matter of her request for compassi onate appointment following the death of her mother on 5.9.2008 who died in harn ess while serving as an Assistant Teacher (Hindi) at Srimanta Sankardev ME Schoo l, Gauripur. According to the petitioner, following the demise of her mother she submitted a representation on 5.12.2008, seeking compassionate appointment in t erms of the policy evolved by the Government. As nothing is forthcoming from the necessary quarters she has approached this Court for redress. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating as above has dr awn the attention of the Court to the letter No. AEE.132/2008/96 dated 11th May, 2009 (Anexure-6 to the writ petition) of the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of A ssam, Education (Elementary) Department requiring the District Elementary Educat ion Officer, Dhubri to take steps for placement of the petitioner’s request bef ore the District Level Committee to be considered in terms of the existing guide lines. Mr Khataniar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the fa cts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is ineligible in terms of the n orms formulated by the Government of Assam and, therefore, the question of consi deration of her case does not arise. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts supported by an affidavit as well as the letter referred to above, this Court considers it appropriate to dispose of the instant proceeding by requiring the concerned authorities of the Education Department of the State to cause a consideration of the petitioner’s prayer for compassionate appointme nt strictly in terms of the norms evolved. Needless to say that after the petiti oner’s request is placed before the concerned District Level Committee it would examine the petitioner’s eligibility for such appointment and take a decision in the matter. As the petitioner waits in expectation, the process should be co mpleted as expeditiously as possible and for that matter her case would be place d in the next sitting of the jurisdictional District Level Committee for the pu rpose. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.