WP(C) 606/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. B.B. Nazari, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Goswami, learned CGC. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the respondents to consider his case on compassionate ground. The prayer w as made on account of death of his father while was in service as Peon under the respondent No. 3. His father expired on 22.11.2006. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that against the 5% quota earmarked for compassionate appointment, there was no vacancy available to accommodate the petitioner. In this connection the respondents have referred three post of LDC and one post of Peon for direct recruitment against which 5% quota comes to 0.20. The respondents have also referred to Apex Court order dat ed 13.01.2005 passed in reference to the order of the Calcutta High Court by whi ch direction was issued for direct recruitment under Eastern Region of the Minis try of Corporate Affairs. The respondents have also referred to the representation of the petition er in which he had stated about the purported direction of this Court naming the particular Hon’ble Judge. However, on enquiry it was found that no such order w as passed, the fact of which the petitioner himself admitted in his Annexure-B r epresentation dated 13.05.2009. Thus, the respondents have questioned the integr ity of the petitioner inasmuch as he had named the particular Hon’ble Judge and the purported order passed by him towards claiming compassionate appointment. In addition to the above, the respondents have also referred Annexure-K order dated 19.05.2009 by which the policy decision of the Govt. in respect of compassionate appointment was conveyed. As per the said decision, compassionate appointment exceeding three years gestation period stood closed. The case of th e petitioner being of the year 2006, his case also came under gestation period. It is not a case of non-consideration of the case of the petitioner. In fact, the case of the petitioner was considered but he could not be appointed du e to the aforesaid reasons. The High Court exercising the power of judicial revi ew under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can only issue a direction fo r consideration and no direction for compassionate appointment can be issued. For all the aforesaid reasons, no direction as such can be passed agains t the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Accord ingly, the writ petition is dismissed.