JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. K Sarma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The respondent Nos.1 – 4 are represented by Mr. Y.S. Mannan, the learned Standing Counsel for the PWD (Building). The Counsel for the respondent No.5 is however absent. 2. The matter pertains to appointment to the post of Section Assistant in the Abhayapuri Building Sub-Division of the PWD. The appointment of Wasim Rabbani (respondent No.5) to the vacancy is challenged on the ground that the petitioner himself was appointed to the said post on compassionate basis on 8.9.2010 (Annexure-2) and therefore it is argued that the service of the compassionate appointee, should not be disturbed. 3. The petitioner’s father Late Sailendra Das died-in-harness on 8.3.2003 while serving as a Section Assistant in the Abhayapuri Building Sub-Division. Seven years after the death of the employee, the Executive Engineer, Goalpara Building Division on 8.9.2010 (Annexure-2) had ordered for the petitioner’s appointment as Section Assistant. Although the appointment was shown to be on compassionate ground, reference was made in the appointment order to the Government letter dated 2.3.2010 which in fact required the post to be filled up through a regular process of selection. 4. However within 5 days of the appointment of the petitioner on 8.9.2010, the appointment order was cancelled on 13.9.2010 by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Goalpara. The appointee claims that he was not served with the cancellation order but the averments in the petition reflects that his immediate authority had informed the petitioner in October, 2010 itself, to stop attending the office as the appointment was not preceded by a due process and the post will have to be filled up through a regular exercise, in accordance with the applicable norms. 5.1 The challenge to the appointment of respondent No.5 is based primarily on the fact that the petitioner was appointed to the post on compassionate basis and the recruitment exercise undertaken by the authorities was intended to regularise the appointment of the petitioner and not for consideration of anyone, from the open market. 5.2 The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was placed before the District Level Committee (DLC), Goalpara and that is how he was appointed. But Mr. Sarma has no information on whether the matter was processed thereafter, by the State Level Committee (SLC). 6.1 On the other hand, Mr. 5.2 The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was placed before the District Level Committee (DLC), Goalpara and that is how he was appointed. But Mr. Sarma has no information on whether the matter was processed thereafter, by the State Level Committee (SLC). 6.1 On the other hand, Mr. Y S Mannan, the learned Standing Counsel for the PWD (Building) submits that appointment to the vacancy of Section Assistant was ordered to be made through a regular selection process, under the Government communication dated 2.3.2010 and this letter was mentioned in the petitioner’s appointment order issued on 8.9.2010. Therefore, the departmental lawyer argues that when the authority for the appointment is traceable to the Govt. communication dated 2.3.2010, which does not speak of compassionate appointment, the unauthorized appointment of the petitioner on compassionate basis was wholly unwarranted. Thus when the mistake was realised, within 5 days, the erroneous appointment order was cancelled on 13.9.2010. 6.2 Referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer on 28.4.2016, the departmental lawyer submits that the process of regular appointment to the vacant post of Section Assistant was prompted by the communication dated 2.3.2010 and the local Employment Exchange was requested to forward names for consideration. In the resultant selection exercise of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the petitioner himself participated as one of the sponsored candidate where the merit of the 39 participants was assessed by the five member selection committee. The members of the committee found Wasim Rabbani to be the most meritorious and thus the Selection Committee recommended his appointment and accordingly the respondent No.5 was appointed on 18.12.2010. 7. The appointment of the respondent No.5 is challenged mainly on the basis of the petitioner’s own appointment on compassionate basis. But what is conspicuous in the 8.9.2010 appointment order is, the absence of reference to any recommendation, either by the SLC or by the DLC. Under the ratio of Achyut Ranjan Das vs. State of Assam reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674, Faziron Nessa vs. State of Assam reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340, the compassionate appointments are to be processed initially through the DLC and thereafter by the SLC. Under the ratio of Achyut Ranjan Das vs. State of Assam reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674, Faziron Nessa vs. State of Assam reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340, the compassionate appointments are to be processed initially through the DLC and thereafter by the SLC. But in the instant case, the petitioner has failed to present any material to satisfy the Court that his appointment was recommended by the SLC, as was mandated by the High Court, in Achyut Ranjan Das (supra) and Faziron Nessa (supra). 8. On the other hand, the appointment order itself refers to the Government communication of 2.3.2010 and this letter directed appointment by selection. Thus, the Executive Engineer could not have appointed anyone on compassionate basis, on the authority of the Government letter dated 2.3.2010. Therefore the description of the appointment as one of compassionate category by the Executive Engineer is found to be erroneous particularly when, there is no reference to recommendation, either of the SLC or by the DLC, in the petitioner’s appointment order. 9. That apart, the candidates were sponsored by the local Employment Exchange on the request of the Executive Engineer and around 39 sponsored candidates joined in the selection exercise. What is significant is that the petitioner also participated in the regular process without any objection. The selection committee after evaluating the candidates, declared that Wasim Rabbani (respondent No.5) was the most meritorious and accordingly recommended him for appointment and the respondent No.5 was then appointed on 18.12.2010. 10. While the selected person was appointed on 18.12.2010, this challenge by the unsuccessful candidate was made nine months later, on 23.9.2010. Yet this Court without being aware of the cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment and the appointment of the respondent No.5 on 18.12.2010, had issued an interim order on 28.9.2011 to protect the petitioner’s continuance in service. But the question is whether the learned Judge would have protected the petitioner if he knew of the petitioner’s appointment cancellation order on 13.9.2010. Moreover, the Court was also not informed that the respondent No.5 in the meantime, was appointed on 8.9.2010, through a regular process. 11. The circumstances in the case suggest that the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was never recommended by the SLC and yet the Executive Engineer appointed him on 8.9.2010 by describing the appointment to be of compassionate category. Moreover, the Court was also not informed that the respondent No.5 in the meantime, was appointed on 8.9.2010, through a regular process. 11. The circumstances in the case suggest that the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was never recommended by the SLC and yet the Executive Engineer appointed him on 8.9.2010 by describing the appointment to be of compassionate category. In fact, the appointment order itself refers to the Government communication of 2.3.2010 which does not contemplate compassionate appointment but speaks of a regular process of selection. Therefore, apparent contradiction is noticed in the appointment order of 8.9.2010 which is the sheet-anchor of the claim made by the petitioner, for his retention in service. 12. The petitioner’s appointment cannot be construed to be of compassionate category since it was not routed through the SLC or the DLC. Therefore, the claim for continuance in service cannot be entertained on the basis of such unauthorized order particularly when, the appointment order was cancelled within 5 days, by the same Executive Engineer. In the regular recruitment exercise held on 19.11.2010, the petitioner participated but the Selection Committee found the 5th respondent to be the most meritorious amongst the 39 candidates and recommended his appointment on merit. Therefore, the challenge by an unsuccessful candidate against the on-merit appointment of respondent No.5, should not in my perception, be entertained. 13. Following the above discussion, this writ petition is found devoid of legal strength and the same is accordingly dismissed. No cost.