JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. J. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Education (Secondary) Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Ms. K. Phukan, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondent No.3. 2. On the request of Mr. Sarma, the name of the respondent No.4 is struck off from the array of respondents. Registry will do the needful. 3. As agreed to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. 4. The petitioner’s father, namely, Chinmoy Das, while working as Upper Division Assistant (UDA) in the Office of the Principal, Jaluguti Secondary School in the district of Morigaon, died in harness on 25.01.2015. The petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment. 5. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.4100/2016 complaining that her application was not being attended to. In the said writ petition, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 had filed an affidavit stating that the case of the petitioner was considered in the meeting of the District Level Committee held on 28.09.2015 and that the application was rejected in the light of the Office Memorandum dated 09.09.1983 as she had got married. 6. The Office Memorandum dated 09.09.1983 is a scheme for appointment on compassionate ground of a son, daughter or near relative of a Government servant. The expression “near relative” was defined to be, a son or an unmarried daughter, the wife or the husband, a brother or a sister of the Government servant, in that order of preference. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the parties are in agreement that an Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2009 was issued laying down revised guidelines for appointment on compassionate ground of a son, daughter or widow of a Government servant. It provided that widow or son or unmarried daughter or adopted son or adopted unmarried daughter of a Government servant, who died in harness, may be provided compassionate appointment in a Class-III or Class-IV post to give immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased Government servant. 8. It provided that widow or son or unmarried daughter or adopted son or adopted unmarried daughter of a Government servant, who died in harness, may be provided compassionate appointment in a Class-III or Class-IV post to give immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased Government servant. 8. Thereafter, another Office Memorandum was issued on 01.06.2015, wherein “dependent family member” of a Government servant entitled for consideration for compassionate appointment was defined to mean a person, who was wholly dependent on the Government servant at the time of his death in harness or retirement on medical grounds, or who had gone missing, as the case may be, and includes (a) spouse, (b) son (including adopted son), (c) daughter (including adopted daughter) or (d) brother or sister in the case of unmarried Government servant. 9. Having regard to the fact that the father of the petitioner expired on 25.01.2015, in any view of the matter, prayer for compassionate appointment could not have been considered on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 09.09.1983. The Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2009 in specific terms had provided for appointment on compassionate ground of an unmarried daughter. However, under the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, a married daughter or married adopted daughter would be entitled for consideration for compassionate appointment. 10. When the case of the petitioner was considered on 28.09.2015, the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 had come into force but at the time when the father had expired, the Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2009 was in force. 11. Even if it is considered that the Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2009 would be applicable to the case of the petitioner, then also the petitioner will be entitled for consideration notwithstanding the fact that she had got married in the meantime in view of the pronouncement of this Court in Nandini Kalita -Vs- State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2016 (1) GLT 560. 12. In the said case, this Court had held that the word “unmarried” prefixing daughter or adopted daughter in the Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2009 would be wholly illegal and unconstitutional. 13. It was further held that a married daughter or a married adopted daughter would be entitled to a consideration for compassionate appointment whether it is under the Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2009 or under the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. 14. 13. It was further held that a married daughter or a married adopted daughter would be entitled to a consideration for compassionate appointment whether it is under the Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2009 or under the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the decision of the DLC dated 28.09.2015 is interfered with and the DLC is directed to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months along with other similarly situated candidates for compassionate appointment. Recommendation made by the DLC will be processed by the State Level Committee (SLC) in accordance with law. 15. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.