WA 255/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A.K.GOEL HION’BLE MR JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN (Goel,J) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.8.2011 of the learned Single Judge passed in WP( C) No.4091/2011 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant seeking a direction for compassionate appointment. Case of the appellant is that, his father was employed as a Peon in Anim al and Veterinary Department of the State of Assam. He died in harness on 16.12 .1997. The appellant made application for compassionate appointment on 3.2.1998 , but the same was not accepted. The appellant filed a writ petition in this Cou rt in the year 2000 which was disposed of on 21.4.2001 directing that the case o f the appellant be considered in accordance with law. The case of the appellant was thereafter kept pending for want of vacancies and subsequently persons who made applications later to the appellant were given appointments ignoring the a ppellant. This led to filing of another writ petition in this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that since a period of 14 years had expired, direction for compassionate appointment could not be given. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when vacancies became ava ilable , the appellant was required to be considered in preference to the appli cants who sought compassionate appointment after the appellant. Reliance has be en placed on a judgment of this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors vs. State of A ssam and Ors reported in 2006(4) GLT 674 wherein directions have been issued tha t applications for compassionate appointment should be considered expeditiously in a time bound manner as laid down therein. We are unable to accept this submission. Compassionate appointment is gi ven to tide over the difficult situation in which dependents of an employee ma y be placed on account of sudden death. The appointment has to be given as per t he policy and subject to availability of vacancies. In the present case, there is nothing to show that within the reasonable time from the date of application any vacancy arose against which the case of the appellant could considered as p er policy. Mere fact that subsequently some vacancies arose which could not be given to the appellant in preference to those applicants who made applications later, on account of death in harness could not give cause of action to the app ellant. Even in the judgment of this court in Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra) it has b een specifically laid down in paragraph 7(X) that if the applications of eligi ble candidates remained pending for want of vacancies, such applications will n ot require any further consideration after two years form the date of such appli cations. In the present case, the date of the application of the appellant is 3. 2.1998 and his claim could be considered only upto 3.2.2000 and not thereafter. It is not the case of the appellant that any vacancy was available prior to 3.2 .2000 for which any other candidate was given preference over the appellant. T his being the position, the claim of the appellant could not be considered for a ny subsequent vacancy. We, thus, do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs.