JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Hrishikesh Roy, J. Heard Mr. MU Mahmud, the learned counsel representing the appellant (writ petitioner). The respondent Nos.1 & 4 are represented by Mr. D. Nath, the learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate. The learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department Mr. N. Sarma appears for the respondent Nos.3, 5 & 6. 2. The matter pertains to a claim for compassionate appointment. The petitioner’s father Hari Prasad Sonowal died in harness on 16.12.2009, while serving as a teacher in the Silapathar Samabai Gaon L.P. School in Dhemaji District. As the only son of the deceased, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 27.1.2010 and the same was placed for consideration before the District Level Committee (in short ‘the DLC’), on 27.6.2011 (page-40), under the chairmanship of the DC, Dhemaji. 3. The district committee examined the pending applications for compassionate appointment and recommended the writ petitioner Monuj Kr. Sonowal, for the post of L.P. School Teacher, for further consideration of the State Level Committee (in short ‘the SLC’). As per procedure, the recommendations from various district committees were considered by the SLC, which met on 1.4.2014, but on account of inadequate vacancies, the case of the writ petitioner was rejected (page-52), by the SLC. 4. The aggrieved aspirant then filed the WP(C) No.6181/2014, seeking direction for his appointment in pursuant to the recommendation made by the DLC and/or to place his case once again, before the next SLC meeting, for consideration of compassionate appointment. To look at it differently, the rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment by the SLC on 1.4.2014, was not challenged in the writ petition. 5. The learned Court considered the favourable recommendation made by the DLC on 27.6.2011 and also the later rejection of the recommendation by the SLC on 1.4.2014. The learned Judge then examined another aspect of the matter, namely, the positive recommendation by the SLC, in favour of one Manuj Kumar Kachari, son of Late Padma Kachari, for the post of U.P. School Teacher. The name of the writ petitioner Manuj Kumar Sonowal (not recommended by the SLC) and the name of Manuj Kumar Kachari (recommended by the SLC), were somewhat similar and the learned Judge noticed an attempt by the petitioner’s lawyer, to mislead the Court, on the two similar names. The name of the writ petitioner Manuj Kumar Sonowal (not recommended by the SLC) and the name of Manuj Kumar Kachari (recommended by the SLC), were somewhat similar and the learned Judge noticed an attempt by the petitioner’s lawyer, to mislead the Court, on the two similar names. In fact, cost was proposed to be imposed on this count but finding that the correct facts were reflected in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, cost was not imposed, while dismissing the claim for compassionate appointment, under the judgment dated 25.3.2015 (Annexure-A), in the WP(C) No.6181/2014. 6. The learned counsel Mr. MU Mahmud submits that in the pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner applied for consideration to the teacher’s post in LP School, only and he never projected any claim for the UP School Teachers post. Since the favourable recommendation for another aspirant with similar name i.e. Manuj Kumar Kachari was for the teacher’s post in UP School, the counsel argues that only correct facts were pleaded and thus there was no attempt to mislead, the learned Court. 7. But what is seen from the impugned judgment is that the learned Judge alluded to the oral arguments of the petitioner’s lawyer where the attempt to twist the facts were noticed. Therefore it is apparent that the observation made by the Court in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment, arise out of the oral submission of the lawyer made to the Court and not from the written pleadings in the case. 8. On the other hand, the learned Govt. Advocate submits that once the required consideration is made by the SLC of a recommended candidate by the DLC, a 2nd consideration by the SLC is not contemplated and therefore he submits that the plea of the writ petitioner for a fresh consideration by the SLC, is not tenable in law. In support of his argument, the learned Govt. Advocate relies on Faziron Nessa vs. State of Assam reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340, whereby the principle No.X, laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das vs. State of Assam reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674, was clarified as follows: “40. In support of his argument, the learned Govt. Advocate relies on Faziron Nessa vs. State of Assam reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340, whereby the principle No.X, laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das vs. State of Assam reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674, was clarified as follows: “40. …………………………… Vii) It is hereby once again clarified that Principle No. X laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra) shall not be applicable to the cases under Principle No.I, but will be applicable in all other cases, meaning thereby, that if applications are pending for a period of two years from the date of making the application but could not be considered for want of vacancies, all such applications will require no further consideration and must be understood that they have spent their force. …………………………” 9. While we can adjudicate this Writ Appeal on the merit of the claim for compassionate appointment, the learned counsel Mr. MU Mahmud is quite concerned with the negative observation made by the learned Single Judge, in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment rendered on 25.3.2015 (Annexure-A), in the WP(C) No.6181/2014. While the concern of the lawyer is understandable, it is difficult for another Court to comprehend what actually was the Advocate’s oral submission, before the learned Single Judge. In fact, the Court wanted to impose cost for the misleading argument but only because similar strategy was not noticed in the written pleadings, cost was not imposed, while dismissing the writ petition. 10. What was the nature of the oral submission of the learned counsel and what was the basis for the perception drawn by the learned Judge, can best be appreciated by the same Judge and therefore when the learned counsel tries to project another version, it is difficult for a stranger to the proceeding, to comprehend what actually transpired in the Court, during the hearing of the WP(C) No.6181/2014. 11. Appreciating the above difficulties, Mr. MU Mahmud, learned counsel submits that better option for him would be to file a Review Petition, to seek correction of the damaging observation and accordingly he prays for the liberty to withdraw this Appeal. In view of such prayer made by the appellant’s lawyer, we order for closure of the case, without making any observation on the merit of the decision and/or the observation in the judgment dated 25.3.2015 (Annexure-A), in the WP(C) No.6181/2014. 12. In view of such prayer made by the appellant’s lawyer, we order for closure of the case, without making any observation on the merit of the decision and/or the observation in the judgment dated 25.3.2015 (Annexure-A), in the WP(C) No.6181/2014. 12. With the above order, this Appeal stands disposed of. No cost.