WP(C) 2480/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. R. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department. The petitioner, an aspirant for appointment on compassionate ground has filed th is writ petition alleging non-consideration of his case by the State Level Commi ttee (SLC). Be it stated here that the District Level Committee (DLC) in its mee ting held on 1.3.2007 recommended the case of the petitioner. Noticing the apath y shown to the case of the petitioner by the respondents, this Court passed the following order on 29.7.2011 The petitioner’s father expired on 30/5/2004 and soon thereafter an application for appointment on compassionate ground was made. By a letter dated 15/2/2007 i.e. after almost three years, the petitioner was as ked to furnish his income certificate. The petitioner furnished the income certi ficate and his case for appointment in compassionate ground was approved by the District Level Committee (DLC). Despite the approval by the DLC, no action was taken by the respondents to furth er process the case of the petitioner. Suddenly on 22/4/2-8, the petitioner was asked to furnish his age and caste certificate which he did. The matter continued to remain pending with the respondents and inspite of repre sentations being made by the petitioner to find out the status of his case inclu ding under the Right to Information Act, no specific information was received. T his led the petitioner to file this petition. Today learned counsel for the respondents says that the case of the petitioner w as rejected as far back as 5/3/2009 on the ground that more than two years have passed after the application was made. No communication appears to have been sen t to the petitioner in this regard. It is quite shocking that the respondents took three years to respond to the req uest of the petitioner and then decided to reject his application on the ground of delay. Learned counsel for the respondents should place on record all the facts by way of an affidavit. She prays for two weeks time to do so. It is made clear that time as prayed for is granted as a last chance. On the next date of hearing, the respondents will produce the entire records per taining to the deliberations of the District Level Committee and the State Level Committee. List again on 19/9/2011. After the aforesaid order, the respondents No. 1 and 5 have filed two individual affidavits. In the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5, the fact of approva l of the case of the petitioner by the DLC on 1.3.2007 has been stated. In the a ffidavit filed by the respondent No. 1, two minutes of the State level Selection Committee meeting held on 28.7.2008 and 5.3.2009 have been annexed. While in th e first meeting of the SLC, the case of the petitioner was recommended along wit h one Ms. Suimee Barua subject to production of death certificate, by the second minutes of the meeting held on 5.3.2009 both the cases were reviewed on the gro und of cases being more than two years old. It is not understood as to how the SLC could have reviewed its own decision. Apa rt from the fact that the SLC may not have power of review, as per the direction of this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das Vs. State of Assam reported in (2006) 4 GLT 674 all the pending cases were to be considered as a one-time measure. In this c onnection, the observation made in paragraph 7.I of the judgment is quoted below : I. All pending applications against existing and available vacancies as per the quota earmarked including the cases of the petitioners in the present cases and all others, who may not be before the Court, shall be decided in accordance wit h the proposed directions to be laid down in the present order and also in accor dance with the principles noted in the preceding paragraphs of this order. This will be done within a period of 4 (four) months from today. The present directio n naturally has to be considered as a one-time measure in view of the subsequent direction as laid down in the succeeding paragraphs. In view of the above, the SLC was bound to consider the case of the petitioner, which was done in its meeting dated 28.7.2008. However, such recommendation for appointment was set at naught on the ground of cases being more than two years o ld. As recorded in the above order of this Court, the petitioner made his applicatio n within time immediately after death of his father and the delay if any towards consideration of his case cannot be attributed to him. Such delay is attributab le to the respondents. But, unfortunately the SLC on a review of its earlier dec ision rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground of there being delay of two years. In view of the above, the minutes of the meeting of the SLC held on 5.3.2009 sta nds set aside and quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned and the matter i s remanded back to the respondent authority to consider the case of the petition er consistently with the observations made above. The SLC may pass appropriate o rder as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition is disposed of.