WP(C) 4519/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms . A. verma, learned Standing Counsel, Health. I have also heard Mr. S. Banik, le arned Standing Counsel, KAAC. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate groun d. The prayer so made is on account of death of the father of the petitioner whi le in service on 1.9.1994. More than 17 years have gone by since then. It appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filling the writ petition being WP(C) 3577/2004, claiming the same relief. The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in terms of the prevalent guidelines. Pursuant to the said order, a speaking or der was passed on 23.10.2009 by the Director of Health Services, Assam, rejectin g the claim of the petitioner. In the mean time, alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid order dated 8.6.2004 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.3577/2004, the petitioner had filed a contempt petition being Contempt Case(C) No. 354/2005. The contempt petition was dispos ed by order dated 10.3.2010 holding that in view of the order passed on 23.10.20 09 by the departmental authority, there was no contempt of this Court. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the said order dated 23.10.20 09, by which the claim of the petitioner was rejected. In the instant case, there is no challenge to the order dated 23.10.2009. Howeve r, challenge to the same was made in another writ petition being WP(C) No. 1988/ 2010. The said writ petition was dismissed for default. Unfortunately, these fac ts have not been disclosed in the instant writ petition. There is also no challe nge to the order dated 23.10.2009, by which the claim of the petitioner was reje cted. The order dated 23.10.2009 has also not been annexed to the writ petition. From the above, what is seen is that there is absolute material suppression of f act in invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. That apart, after expiry of more than 17 years, there cannot be any question of compassionate appointment, which is not a source of recruitment. Law is well settled that compassionate app ointment is provided to redeem the family in distress by way of providing immedi ate financial assistance. After lapse of a considerable period of time, the very concept of compassionate appointment cannot survive. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.