WP(C) 3639/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI The petitioner’s father, while working as a Classical Teacher, in Jahurp um M.E. School, at Barpeta, went, on voluntary retirement, on medical ground. Fa cing financial hardship, the petitioner applied for appointment under the scheme meant for making appointments on compassionate ground, the scheme having been i ncorporated in the Office Memorandum, dated 9.9.1983, issued by the State Govern ment. In terms of the requirement of the Office Memorandum and the decisions of this C ourt rendered in Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2006 ( 4) GLT 674, and Faziron Nessa & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340, the petitioner’s case, was accordingly, considered alongwith other s. The District Level Committee, at Barpeta, considered altogether 11 applications for appointment on compassionate ground. The said District Level Committee decid ed that the petitioners, whose fathers or husbands, as the case may be, had died in harness and who needed financial assistance, they shall be given appointment s provided that the requisite petitions stand made by the petitioners concerned within a short period of time. As far as the present petitioner is concerned, th e District Level Committee took the view that since the petitioner’s father had opted for voluntary retirement, he has received his gratuity amount of Rs. 1,40, 154/- and he has been receiving family pension of Rs. 3291/- per month, compared to the need of the petitioner and his family, the other applicants were more de serving candidates and their names were, therefore, recommended for appointments . Aggrieved by the decision of the District Level Committee so taken, the petiti oner has filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indi a, seeking issuance of appropriate direction(s). Heard Md. Giash Uddin, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, a nd Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, appearing o n behalf of the respondents. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that there is no dispute that the petitioner as well as others, who have been given appointments, were all covered by the Office Memorandum aforementioned inasmuch as the office memorandum makes a person entitled to be considered for appointmen t on compassionate ground if his/her father or husband, as the case may be, had died in harness or where the Government employee had gone on voluntary retiremen t. If two persons are equally eligible for appointment on compassionate ground, it is the comparative need and financial conditions of such persons, which are t o be considered. The person, who dies in harness, may or may not receive pension if he has not put in requisite number of years of service. The legal representa tive of such a person, if found eligible, needs to be given appointment. Thus th e circumstances of such a person would justify appointment under the said scheme compared to a person, whose father has gone on voluntary retirement and receivi ng pension of a reasonable amount. In the case at hand, the District Level Committee has taken the view t hat those applicants, whose father or husband had died in harness meaning thereb y, whose family had been left with no source of income and, who had made their a pplications, within a short period after the death of their father/husband, thei r cases shall be considered and that the present petitioner, whose father had go ne on voluntary retirement on medical ground, but has been receiving pension can not supercede the interest of the other applicants. This Court does not find tha t the decision of the District Level Committee, is such, which can be treated as arbitrary, mala fide, irrational or unreasonable. When there are two equally ac ceptable choices available, in a given situation, an administrator, out of such two available choices, may choose one of them and a writ court would not, in exe rcise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interfere wit h such a decision inasmuch as such a decision can be treated to have all such fa ctors, which were relevant, and kept excluded from consideration all such factor s which were irrelevant. In the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, this Cour t does not find that the decision of the District Level Committee not to give ap pointment to the petitioner, suffers from any infirmity, legal or factual. In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is not admitted and shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.