WP(C) 26/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Ms. E. Shar ma, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondents-State. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuing a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner in any post of Grade-IV service on compassionate ground as per Go vt. circular. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s father was working as Khalas hi(Grade-IV) in the Department of Public Health Engineering(PHE), under the resp ondent authorities in Goalpara District. His father died in harness on 23.10.200 6, leaving behind two wives, four daughters, five sons including the petitioner and the petitioner’s father was the only earning member in their family. After the death of his father, the petitioner submitted an application before th e respondent No.4, for his appointment in the category of Grade-IV employee on c ompassionate ground as per the guidelines issued by the Government in this regar d. The respondent No.4 issued letter on 21.07.2008, in pursuant to the letter dated 14.07.2008, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara, asking the petitioner to submit a fresh application as per prescribed proforma as required by the Depu ty Commissioner, Goalpara. Accordingly, the petitioner, once again, submitted fr esh application in prescribed proforma, for consideration of his appointment on compassionate ground. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the application so filed on beh alf of the petitioner, was not considered by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that respondent No.3 has filed aff idavit in this case, where it has been stated that the application submitted by the petitioner, was received by the District Level Committee and it was consider ed by the Committee on 21.10.2008 and the prayer of the petitioner for appointme nt on compassionate ground, was rejected by the Committee for want of vacancy. On perusal of the affidavit submitted on behalf of the respondents, it appears t hat the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was consi dered and it was rejected by the respondent authorities since there was no vacan cy available to accommodate the petitioner on compassionate ground. On careful consideration of the entire gamut of facts, I find that since the app lication for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was considere d by the respondent authorities in terms of the guidelines issued by the Governm ent, the grievance raised by the petitioner is not tenable in law. In view of the above discussions, I find no merit in this writ petition. Accordi ngly, this petition stands dismissed.