WP(C) 6181/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mrs . M. Gogoi Medhi, learned Standing Counsel, Education. The matter relates to the prayer of the petitioner for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground. On an earlier occasion he had approached this court by filling WP(C) 5093/2009 with the same prayer and the wr it petition was disposed of by order dated 20.11.2009 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of guidelines laid down in Achyu t Ranjan Das Vs. State of Assam and others reported in (2006) 4 GLT 674. Pursuan t to the aforesaid direction of this court, the appropriate authority i.e. the D istrict Level Committee (DLC) has considered the case of the petitioner alongwit h other similarly situated persons. As per the findings recorded by the DLC, the case of the petitioner could not be recommended for appointment on compassionat e ground as the total income of the family was found to be highest amongst all e ligible applicants. The committee recommended the private respondents for appoin tment on compassionate ground taking into account the economic condition and oth er criteria fixed by the Government. According to the petitioner, the findings of the DLC is not based on rec ord. In this connection, the petitioner has shown the purported annual income of the families of the private respondents. It has been stated that the real state of affair was not before the DLC and consequently it took a wrong decision, whi ch deprives the petitioner from being appointed on compassionate ground. Needless to say that compassionate appointment is not a source of recrui tment. An exception is made for such appointment considering the financial hards hip of the family. It cannot be said that each and every candidate will have to be appointed. Such appointments will have to be made taking into account various parameters and yardsticks, which govern the case for appointment on compassiona te ground. This court having already directed the authorities to consider the ca se of the petitioner and the said exercise have already been carried out. Now, t he writ court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the C onstitution of India, cannot make a roving enquiry as to the case of the petitio ner that the other selected candidates are in better place than him. The respond ent authority i.e. the DLC having already considered the case of the petitioner, I am afraid that no further direction can be issued for further consideration o f the case of the petitioner. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and acc ordingly the writ petition is dismissed.