WP(C) 2169/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. S Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. PN Goswa mi, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, appearing on behalf of respo ndent Nos. 1, 2 and 6. Heard also Mr. K Das, learned Standing Counsel, BTC, for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5, and Mr. BC Saikia, learned Government Advocate, for the respondent No. 7. The petitioner came, earlier, to this Court with a writ petition made un der Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 5/200 9, seeking appropriate directions to the respondents to consider the petitioner’ s case for appointment under the relevant scheme meant for making appointments o n compassionate ground. The said writ petition was disposed of, on 07-01-2009, w ith direction to the respondents to process the claim of the petitioner for appo intment on compassionate ground in terms of the guidelines laid down in this reg ard as and when the cases of other similar situated persons are taken up for con sideration. The petitioner has, now, filed the present writ petition seeking a direction fro m this Court to the respondents to show cause as to why the petitioner shall not be appointed on compassionate ground. However, on a pointed query made by this Court, it could not be submitted, on behalf of the petitioner, as to whether the petitioner’s case has or has not been placed before the State Level Committee a fter his case had been considered and forwarded by the District Level Committee, Kokrajhar, to the State Level Committee. It could also not be clarified, on beh alf of the petitioner, whether the petitioner’s case was placed before the State Level Committee concerned and if the same, on being so placed for consideration , has or has not been rejected. In the latter case, this Court ought to know the ground/grounds for rejection of the petitioner’s case if his case was considere d by the State Level Committee. The writ petition is, therefore, vague and lacks material particulars. In the circumstances indicated above, this writ petition is disposed of with dir ection to the respondent No. 2, namely, Director, Elementary Education, Governme nt of Assam, to examine the grievances of the petitioner and if the case of the petitioner has not been placed before the State Level Committee, then, the case of the petitioner shall be placed before the State Level Committee as and when h is turn comes and if the case of the petitioner had already been considered by t he State Level Committee, but rejected, then, the reasons for such rejection, sh all be made known to the petitioner so that the petitioner can take further acti on in accordance with law, as he may deem necessary. Whatever be the result of s uch the inquiry, which is required to be so made by the respondent No. 2, namely , Director of Elementary Education, Guwahati, the same shall be communicated, in writing, to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receip t of a copy of this order by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner may furnish to the respondent No.2, namely, Director of Elementary Education, Assam, a certifi ed copy of this order along with a copy of this writ petition and annexures ther eto. If the petitioner’s case was considered by the State Level Committee and, t hen, rejected, the petitioner may, if he feels aggrieved, take recourse to appro priate provisions of law. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand dispo sed of.