ORDER : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.03.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 433 of 2015 dismissing the writ petition seeking a mandamus requiring the State respondents therein to consider the case of the appellant herein for appointment in Government service on Compassionate ground. 2. We have heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mrs. B. Goyal, learned Sr. Govt. counsel for respondents. 3. The case projected by the appellant/writ petitioner, in short, is that his father Samsul Hoque Laskar was a Gaon Panchayat Secretary. He died-in-harness on 10.02.2001. Petitioner claimed to have filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground before the Chief Executive Officer, Hailakandi Zilla Parishad on 29.01.2002. According to the appellant, his application was misplaced and therefore he had to file another application on 21.04.2003. 4. The District Level Committee, Hailakandi, Assam considered the case of appellant and on 23.06.2011, it recommended that the appellant be appointed against the post of Tax Collector on compassion. However, the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 01.02.2014 rejected the recommendation on the ground that as required under the law, such application seeking appointment on compassion was not filed within the period of 1 (one) year from the date of death of father of the appellant. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant has approached this court by way of WP (C) No. 433 of 2015 seeking following reliefs:- “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that your Lordships would graciously be pleased to admit this petition, call for the record, issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ be not issued directing the respondent authorities to forthwith consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and after hearing the parties and on perusal of records Your Lordships would be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or pass such further or other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper” 6. Notice of the proceeding was served on the respondents. Respondents entered appearance having filed counter affidavit contested the proceeding wherein it was contended that the claim of the appellant that he filed an application seeking appointment on compensate ground within a year from the death of her father is a bogus plea. 7. Notice of the proceeding was served on the respondents. Respondents entered appearance having filed counter affidavit contested the proceeding wherein it was contended that the claim of the appellant that he filed an application seeking appointment on compensate ground within a year from the death of her father is a bogus plea. 7. The State respondents further contend that relief, sought for cannot be granted after 15 years from the date of death of father of the appellant. On hearing both the parties, learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the proceeding filed by the appellant vide judgment dated 25.03.2015 in WP (C) No. 433 of 2015. 8. Contending that such a judgment was not rendered in accordance with the prescription of law or materials on record, learned counsel for the appellant submits that suspicion harbored by learned Single Judge in filing application aforementioned within 1 year from the date of death of father of the appellant is totally unfounded. 9. Further, the observation of the learned Single Judge that since the office of Deputy Chief Executive Officer in Zilla Parishad is not in existence, the application dated 29.01.2002 is a manipulated one is also without any basis since the office of the Deputy Chief Executive Officer in Zilla Parishad does exist in Panchayati Raj System. 10. On the other hand, Mrs. B. Goyal, learned Sr. GA submits that there is no infirmity in the order under challenge since same was rendered strictly in accordance with the prescription of law and also on the basis of materials on record. Being so, the appeal in hand needs no interference, more particularly, when the writ petitioner/appellant approached this court seeking appointment on compassion after a gap of 15 years from the date of death of his father. 11. In order to appreciate the claim of the appellant, we find it necessary to have a look at the judgment under challenge. For ready reference, the relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:- “There is no official correspondence or document on record to show that petitioner had submitted the application on 29.01.2002. However, there is seal and signature dated 29.01.2002 in the Annexure-2 application dated 29.01.2002. however, the seal is not at all legible though the date is legible. For ready reference, the relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:- “There is no official correspondence or document on record to show that petitioner had submitted the application on 29.01.2002. However, there is seal and signature dated 29.01.2002 in the Annexure-2 application dated 29.01.2002. however, the seal is not at all legible though the date is legible. But in the Annexure-2 statement stated to be issued by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Hailakandi Zilla Parishad, it is shown that the date of application of the petitioner is 29.01.2002. however, in the application dated 21.04.2003( Annexure-3) there is no reference by the petitioner to her alleged first application dated 29.01.2002. there is no statement that she was informed that her earlier application as misplaced. In such circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the Annexure-2 statement. Moreover, as submitted by the learned State counsel, there is not office of the Deputy Chief Executive Officer in any of the Zilla Parishads in the State of Assam. Therefore, no fault can be found with the view taken by the State Level Committee that the date of application of the petitioner exceeded the limit of one year. In any case, no direction can be issued for compassionate appointment 14 years after the death of the Government servant. The District Level Committee, Hailakandi recommended the case of the petitioner after 10 years of the death of her father without any proper justification. It is further seen that all the three recommendations made by the District Level Committee pertaining to the Panchayat & Rural Development Department were against single vacancies. If the recommendations for compassionate appointment are made against all the available vacancies in such a manner, it is not understood as to how and in what manner general recruitment can be carried out. There will be no vacancy left for regular appointment.” 12. We have considered the rival submissions having regard to the judgment under challenge and found no infirmity in the order requiring this court to interfere the same, more so, when the appellant/writ petitioner chose to approach this court after a gap of 15 years from the date of death of his father. 13. In the result, this appeal is dismissed being found devoid of merit. 14. Parties are left to bear their own expenses.