JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. A Chamuah, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Mr. S S Roy, the learned Government advocate for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the writ petitioner in the instant case is that although a direction was given by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in WP(C) No.2870/2015 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of the ratio laid down by the Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das Vs. State of Assam and Others reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674 and Fozirun Nessa & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340. The respondent authorities have not acted upon the application submitted by the petitioner on 27.07.2015 (Annexure-11) and, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court again. 3. Mr. Chamuah, the learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the meeting minutes of the District Level Committee dated 08.11.2013 (Annexure-5) submits that the petitioner’s candidature for compassionate appointment to the post of Mandal was rejected since he did not possess the Recorders Certificate Class Course Training (RCCC). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the advertisement dated 08.09.2015 (Annexure-6) which was published subsequently, nowhere prescribed the RCCC qualification for the post of Mandal. He also submits that the RCCC course is a course which in fact is to be undertaken after being appointed to the post of Mandal and therefore, there is no occasion for the petitioner to take the said course prior to his appointment. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the office order dated 30.08.2006 (Annexure-9), wherein, one Shri Nava Kishore Sarma was appointed as Mandal on compassionate basis and by the same order, it was provided that the appointed person shall clear the RCCC Training within a period of 2 (two) years from the date of the order. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court passed in the case of Trailokya Nath Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2016(5) GLT 310, wherein, the petitioner in that case was rejected for compassionate appointment for want of the required minimum percentage of marks at the degree level. 7. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court passed in the case of Trailokya Nath Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2016(5) GLT 310, wherein, the petitioner in that case was rejected for compassionate appointment for want of the required minimum percentage of marks at the degree level. 7. This Court had, by considering the nature of the application made for compassionate appointment, held that the State respondents were not justified in rejecting the petitioner’s claim for appointment and therefore, the petitioner should be considered against any other vacancy, earmarked for compassionate appointment having regard to his qualification. Thus, the case was remanded back to the State Level Committee for taking a fresh decision in the matter. 8. Following the ratio held, this Court in another case, i.e., WP(C) No.5065/2016 in Kangkana Bora Vs. the State of Assam and 3 Ors. has held that the primary objective of framing a scheme for appointment on compassionate basis for the dependents of the Govt. servant who die-in-harness is to give immediate relief to the family members of the deceased keeping in view that the State Level Committee would be under an obligation to adopt a pragmatic and compassionate approach in such matters to accommodate the applicant against any other vacant post having regard to the qualification of the applicant which may be available under the scheme. Therefore, the State Level Committee was directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner against any other vacant post available under the scheme subject to fulfillment of the qualification norms. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case, there is no dispute regarding the vacancy position in the post of Mandal but the only ground for rejection of the petitioner is for non-possession of the RCCC. He submits that even if assuming that the petitioner is not qualified to be appointed as Mandal, the respondent authorities are duty bound to consider the petitioner against any other post having regard to the qualification of the petitioner. That aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the District Level Committee. 10. Mr. Roy, the learned State counsel at this stage submits that he may be granted some time to obtain instructions from the Department concerned. That aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the District Level Committee. 10. Mr. Roy, the learned State counsel at this stage submits that he may be granted some time to obtain instructions from the Department concerned. However, upon perusal of the materials available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the case can be taken up for disposal even at this stage. 11. Perusing the documents of the State respondents, more particularly, the advertisement dated 08.09.2015, whereby, the post of Mandal has been advertised, it is seen that as per the eligibility criteria laid down, the educational qualification has been prescribed as HSSLC passed. Nowhere in the said advertisement has it been specified that such candidates applying for the post of Mandal should possess RCCC. At the same time, on perusal of the office order dated 30.08.2006 by which an appointment has been made in favour of a candidate who does not have the RCCC, it can be well seen that training in RCCC prior to such appointment appears not to be mandated. The appointed person after the appointment was asked to obtain the training in RCCC within 2 (two) years. Likewise, in the present case at hand, I do not see as to why the petitioner should be rejected from being appointed to the post of Mandal for want of the RCCC training course. 12. The petitioner’s father was working as Mandal under the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang and he died-in-harness on 13.07.2013 leaving behind his wife and three children. The application for compassionate appointment was also filed by the petitioner well within time and the respondent authorities ought to have considered such application with due consideration and compassion in terms of the decision rendered by this Court as already referred to above. However, the petitioner has been relegated to yet another Court proceeding despite the first round of litigation having been disposed in clear terms. 13. However, the petitioner has been relegated to yet another Court proceeding despite the first round of litigation having been disposed in clear terms. 13. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances including the application submitted by the petitioner on 27.07.2015, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Level Committee to reconsider the application of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above and the District Level Committee shall take a decision on the application of the petitioner within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. On taking such a decision, the District Level Committee shall forthwith communicate the same to the petitioner and at the same time to the State Level Committee for its consideration. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No cost.