WP(C) 6408/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. D.A. Kaiyum, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H.K. Barman, learned State Counsel representing the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpa ra (Respondent No.5). Also heard Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, E ducation. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the order dated 20.10.2 011 (Annexure-E), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara, rejecting the cas e of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in reference to Clause-X of th e decision in 2006(4) GLT 674 (Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Or s ). By the said judgement and order, certain directions were issued towards con sideration of the cases for compassionate appointment including the pending appl ications. In terms of Clause-I of para 7 of the said judgement, all pending applic ations were required to be considered within a period of four months. Once the c ases are considered in terms of the said clause, after expiry of two years, such pending cases are required to be construed to have spent their force. This aspe ct of the matter has been discussed in Clause-X. For a ready reference, Clause I & X of the said judgement are reproduced below :- I) All pending applications against existing and available vacancies as per the quota earmarked including the cases of the petitioners in the present cases and all others, who may not be before the Court, shall be decided in accordance wit h the proposed directions to be laid down in the present order and also in accor dance with the principles noted in the preceding paragraphs of this order. This will be done within a period of 4 (four) months from today. The present directio n naturally has to be considered as a one-time measure in view of the subsequent direction as laid down in the succeeding paragraphs. X) If the applications of eligible candidates remain pending and cannot be consi dered due to want of vacancies for a period of 2 (two) years from the date of ma king such applications, all such applications will require no further considerat ion and must be understood to have spent their force\. The case of the petitioner was rejected on both the occasion i.e. on 21 .10.2008 and 20.10.2011 (Annexure-E), in reference to Clause X of the judgement and not in reference to Clause-I. In other words, the case of the petitioner was required to be considered in its merit applying the yardsticks and parameters l aid down in 2006(4) GLT 674 (Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors ) and 2010 (4) GLT 340 (Foziron Nessa & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & ors). In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Dep uty Commissioner, Goalpara to consider the case of the petitioner in the light o f the above and not merely on the ground of his case having spent its force. This order shall not be construed to be an order for appointment of the petition er. What has been provided by this order is to consider the case of the petition er applying the yardsticks and parameters laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das and Foz iron Nessa (Supra) and in reference to Clause-I of Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra). The writ petition stands disposed of, without however, any order as to costs.