JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. M J Quadir, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father was a Grade-IV employee in the office of the Executive Engineer, Guwahati and died-in-harness on 06.04.2002. He further submits that the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground to the respondent authorities in 2002 itself. After a series of litigation passed by this Court, the case was ultimately rejected on 05.06.2015 on the ground that the application submitted by the petitioner had lapsed pursuant to the Government instructions contained in 20.12.2012 and 07.03.2015. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recently he has come across the office memorandum dated 01.06.2015, whereby, it has been clarified that the pending cases which in fact existed prior to 03.08.2006 would not be covered by the order dated 07.03.2015 which is to the effect that pending applications which could not be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of 2(two) years would require no further consideration and must be understood to have spent its force. Admittedly, as can be seen from the minutes dated 05.06.2015 (Annexure-7), District Level Committee did not take into consideration the office memorandum dated 01.06.2015 and therefore rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground indicated in the minutes is not tenable. 4. Appearing for the State respondents, Ms. M Bhattacharjee, the learned State counsel submits that the District Level Committee on 05.06.2015 have considered the case of the petitioner but since the specified period of 2 (two) years had lapsed in terms of the Government instructions dated 20.12.2012 and 07.03.2015, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected. In rejection of the petitioner’s application, no fault can be attributed to the State respondents, inasmuch as, the State respondents have only followed the guidelines as was decided in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Ors. reported in (2006) 4 GLT 674. 5. I have considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the materials available on record. Although, the petitioner had submitted his application for compassionate appointment in the year 2002 itself after his father died-in-harness on 06.04.2002, the District Level Committee could only consider the case of the petitioner on 05.06.2015 after a series of litigation including the Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. Although, the petitioner had submitted his application for compassionate appointment in the year 2002 itself after his father died-in-harness on 06.04.2002, the District Level Committee could only consider the case of the petitioner on 05.06.2015 after a series of litigation including the Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. (Supra) was decided by this Court. 6. It is an admitted position that this Court by the aforesaid decision had directed that all the pending applications should be considered and disposed of within the outer limit of 4 (four) months from the date of the judgment and order, i.e., 03.08.2006. However, the case of the petitioner could only be considered on 05.06.2015 and was rejected on the ground that condition No. 10 only permits the outer limit of 2 (two) years for rejection of the application on account of non-availability of vacancy. It may be noticed herein that the office memorandum dated 01.06.2015 was issued by the State respondents, whereby, the pending cases which were governed by the Principle No.1 was to be disposed of within 6 (six) months from the date of issue of the office memorandum. 7. In such a situation, the District Level Committee could not have rejected the application of the petitioner in view of Clause (b) of the office memorandum dated 01.06.2015. Clause(b) of the office memorandum dated 01.06.2015 may be reproduced for ready reference:- “(b)It may be noted that once consideration of a case as a onetime measure under principle I is over, such applications that may remain pending are not required to be considered if a period of more than two years has elapsed. Thus, it is clarified that so far as the pending cases covered by Principle No. I are concerned, these cases cannot be rejected applying the test of principle No. 10. The principle No. 10 will come into operation only in respect of cases other than the pending cases covered by the principle-I, i.e., cases received after 03.08.2006. this implies that if applications are pending for a period of two years from the date of making an application but could not be considered for want of vacancies, all such application will require no further consideration and must be understood that they have spent their force.” 8. this implies that if applications are pending for a period of two years from the date of making an application but could not be considered for want of vacancies, all such application will require no further consideration and must be understood that they have spent their force.” 8. A perusal of the relevant portion of the office memorandum dated 01.06.2015 would only show that the case of the petitioner could not have been rejected since the same was covered by Principle No.1 of the judgment rendered in Achyut Ranjan Das and Ors. (Supra). 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M J Quadir, also submits that this Court in a similar case, i.e., WP(C) No.5364/2016 had disposed of the same on 19.05.2017 with a direction to the District Level Committee to reconsider the case of the petitioner since the case of the petitioner in that case was covered by the Principle No.1. He, therefore, prays for similar direction in the instant case as well. 10. From what can be seen from the facts that has emerged, I do not see as to why a similar direction should not be given in the instant case as well since the petitioner’s case is well covered under the condition No. 1 of the said decision. 11. In such circumstances, the minutes of the District Level Committee dated 05.06.2015 so far as the petitioner is concerned is interfered with. The respondent No. 3 shall now place the case of the petitioner before the respondent No. 4 within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the respondent No. 4 on receipt of the same shall reconsider the case of the petitioner within a period of 2 (two) months thereafter. 12. It is made clear that if the petitioner is recommended by the District Level Committee, his name shall be put before the State Level Committee as expeditiously as possible for its consideration. 13. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No cost.