WP(C) 2039/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and Mr. B. J. Ghosh, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner’s father, Gajadhar Choudhury, died, on 08.11.1994, in har ness, while he was serving, in the Assam Secretariat, as a Grade-IV employee, le aving behind his children and widow, the petitioner being the only major son of the said deceased. On the death of his father, the petitioner applied for appoi ntment, on compassionate ground, to any Grade III or any Grade IV post under the relevant scheme of the State Government. This apart, the petitioner is a handi capped person. The petitioner’s case was considered by the respondents/authoriti es concerned and police verification, in this regard, was also carried out. Whi le the matter was so pending, the decision, in Achyut Ranjan Das and ors vs. Sta te of Assam and ors, reported in 2006(4) GLT 674, was rendered, which laid down a complete scheme for appointment on compassionate ground. When this judgment w as delivered, there was no vacancy in Grade-IV post and as many as 67 numbers of applications seeking appointment on compassionate ground were pending. After t he decision, in Achyut Ranjan Das (supra), the petitioner was given an option to appear, if he so wished, in the selection test for appointment to the post of t ypist, which is a Grade III post, and, for this purpose, he was asked to appear in a typing speed test. The petitioner, having opted to appear in the typing sp eed test, appeared in the said test, on 05.01.2006, along with other applicants, but he could not secure the minimum qualifying marks. In such circumstances, t he question of appointing the petitioner to the post of typist/LDA does not aris e at all. The respondents, therefore, committed no wrong in not appointing the petitioner. It is, now, contended, on behalf of the petitioner, that since the selec tion of the petitioner was already over and the matter was pending only for the purpose of issuance of appointment letter, the decision, rendered by the High Co urt, in Achyut Ranjan Das (supra), could not have been applied to the case of th e petitioner. This Court finds no substance in the submission made on behalf of the pe titioner inasmuch as all the cases, where the appointment order had not already been issued, were to be treated, if they were proceeded with on the basis of the applicants seeking appointment on compassionate ground, in terms of the decisio n, in Achyut Ranjan Das (supra). The fact, therefore, that police verification had been completed and that the matter was pending with the respondents for issu ing appointment order, does not confer on the petitioner any right to claim appo intment inasmuch as the question of the Government not applying the law, as laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das (supra), could not have arisen. The action of the re spondents, in not appointing the petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to be bad in law. What is, however, important to note is that there is nothing on record t o show that a person, such as the petitioner, on his opting to appear in the sel ection test/typing test, for appointment to a Grade III post, would lose his rig ht to be considered for appointment to a Grade IV post. On a query, made by thi s Court, the learned Government Advocate could not apprise this Court of the Gov ernment policy, if any, in this regard. Situated thus, the petitioner’s right t o be considered for appointment to a Grade IV post, on compassionate ground, has still survived. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this writ pet ition is disposed of with direction to the respondents/authorities concerned to place the case of the petitioner before the District Level Committee, in terms o f the directions, given in Achyut Ranjan Das (supra), and, in accordance with th e decision, which may be arrived at by the District Level Committee, the matter shall be proceeded further in accordance with law. The petitioner’s case shall be placed before the District Level Committee in its next meeting, whenever the meeting is held. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition and the Misc. Case, filed therein, shall stand disposed of. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned Government Advocate.