WA 46/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. K. SAIKIA (Goel,J.) This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant for a direction to give compassionate appoint ment. Father of the appellant was working in the Assam State Electricity Board, who di ed in harness on 21.05.2002. The appellant applied for compassionate appointment and filed WP(C) No.855 of 2007 seeking a direction for appointment. This Court disposed of the petition on 5.4.2007 directing consideration of the case of the appellant. Case of the appellant was considered and rejected on 4.10.2007 on the ground that policy dated 30.4.2005, under which appointment was sought, was not applicable as death has taken place prior thereto. The appellant thereafter fil ed WP(C) No.607 of 2008 seeking a direction for consideration in terms of earlie r policy of the year 1988. By order dated 9.5.2008 the writ petition was dispose d of with a direction for consideration of the case of the appellant in terms of 1988 policy. In compliance thereof, order dated 19.6.2008 was passed rejecting the case of the appellant. The appellant again moved this Court by way of WP(C) No.3277 of 2008. Learned Single Judge after due consideration, held that there was no error in th e order dated 19.06.2008. The policy of the year 1988 had been kept in abeyance and in any case at the relevant point of time there was no vacancy available to give compassionate appointment to a large number of applicants. We have heard Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned counsel for the appellant. The contention put forward is that in the earlier round of litigation the ASEB h ad not taken the stand that no vacancy was available. Their stand was that the 1 988 policy had been suspended and was abolished on 20.11.2002. We are unable to accept the submission. In the order of this Court dated 9.5.200 8 stand of the ASEB was that the policy was suspended in the year 1994 on accoun t of lack of vacancies. On 20.11.2002 the policy was modified to be applicable o nly to the employees killed by extremists, while on duty. Thus, on the relevant date, 1988 policy itself was not in force. The appellant has not rebutted the st and taken in the impugned order that the policy was of the year 1988, which was not operative. No instance has been shown of compassionate appointment having be en given at the relevant time. In these circumstances, the view taken by the lea rned Single Judge cannot be held to be erroneous. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.