JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. P.P. Dutta, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. A. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the Environment and Forest Department (Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3). Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned State Counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Although the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are represented by Mr. B.J. Ghosh who has filed affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the said respondents, he is absent today. 2. Brief facts for disposing the case may be narrated at the out set. Petitioner’s father who was working as a Forest Guard Grade-III under the establishment of the Divisional Forest Officer Kamrup East Division of the Environment and Forest Department expired on 13.10.2012 while working as such. On his death, the employee left behind his wife, two sons and one daughter. The petitioner being the eldest amongst the children applied for compassionate appointment by submitting his application in the month of March, 2003 through the Range Forest Office under the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup East Division. The application of the writ petitioner upon being forwarded to the State Government in the Environment and Forest Department, the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Environment and Forest Department vide communication dated 06.12.2003 informed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Respondent No. 2) that the Govt. had no objection for appointment of the petitioner against Grade-III posts subject to availability of vacancy and compliance of the existing rules and procedures. 3. The petitioner, therefore, was expecting favourable consideration of his case for compassionate appointment but however, as he did not receive any communication as to what has happened to his application for a long time, he submitted an application seeking information from the office of the respondent No. 2 under the Right to Information Act on 24.07.2015. In response to his application, the petitioner was informed by the State Public Information Officer under the establishment of the respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 21.08.2015 in the following words :- “61 Nos. of candidates have been appointed in compassionate ground with effect from 2003 to 2010 up to 2015 is under process.” Since the petitioner submitted his application in the month of March, 2003 and he was not considered for appointment on compassionate ground, being aggrieved, he has filed the present writ petition. 4. of candidates have been appointed in compassionate ground with effect from 2003 to 2010 up to 2015 is under process.” Since the petitioner submitted his application in the month of March, 2003 and he was not considered for appointment on compassionate ground, being aggrieved, he has filed the present writ petition. 4. In response to the writ petition, the respondent No. 2 on 12.08.2016 has filed a consolidated affidavit wherein it has been contended that pursuant to the decision taken by this Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das and others reported in 2006 4 GLT 674, the Department of Personnel (B), Govt. of Assam had issued notification dated 11.10.2006 whereby a State Level Committee (SLC) was constituted comprising of the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, The Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Finance Department as Member of the SLC and the Commissioner & Secretary/ Secretaries/ Additional Secretaries/Joint Secretaries to the Govt of Assam, of Administrative Department relating to the Compassionate appointment cases as the Member Secretary of the SLC. The said notification also provided that the decision of the High Court in connection with the cases for compassionate appointment should be meticulously followed. In terms of the said notification, the name of the petitioner was placed before the SLC which held its meeting on 01.04.2015 wherein, as many as 104 numbers of candidates were recommended for appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, according to the respondents, the writ petitioner after being duly considered was not selected for appointment. 5. The petitioner on 15.12.2016, filed an additional affidavit whereby, he contends that against the vacancies for the year 2003-2004, the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were recommended for appointment on compassionate ground against a Grade III and Grade IV post respectively on the recommendation of the SLC which met on 01.04.2015 though their financial status were better than the writ petitioner. The petitioner contends that this clearly amounts to violation of condition No. VI stipulated by this Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das(Supra). 6. The private respondents Nos. 6 and 7 have also filed their respective affidavits and it is their contention that they have been duly recommended by the SLC and therefore, there is nothing wrong with their appointment. 6. The private respondents Nos. 6 and 7 have also filed their respective affidavits and it is their contention that they have been duly recommended by the SLC and therefore, there is nothing wrong with their appointment. They maintain that the respondent No. 6 submitted his application for appointment on compassionate basis in the year 2001 while the respondent No. 7 applied similarly in the year 2002 and therefore, they were rightly considered by the SLC and recommended for appointment. 7. The submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties have been duly considered and the material available on record perused. 8. As may be noticed, the father of the petitioner died in harness on 13.10.2002 while he was working as Forest Guard Grade III under the establishment of the Divisional Forest Officer Kamrup East Division. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment by submitting application in the year 2003 and the State respondents in the Environment and Forest Department conveyed that there was no objection to his appointment on compassionate ground to any Grade III post subject to there being a vacancy and as per the norms and guidelines followed by the State Government. Thereafter, it was only when the SLC met on 01.04.2015 that the case of the petitioner was considered for his appointment on compassionate basis. The writ petitioner on obtaining a copy of the SLC Meeting Minutes on 01.04.2015 has annexed the same as Annexure ‘F’ to his consolidated affidavit dated 12.08.2016. A perusal of the SLC Meeting Minutes would indicate that for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground for the year 2003, there were 5 vacancies in the Grade III posts and 2 vacancies in the Grade IV post. 5 (Five) applications for compassionate appointment made for the year 2001 and 6 (Six) applications made similarly in the year 2002 were carried forward to be considered for appointment for the year 2003. In addition to the 11 applications that were carried forward, 22 other applications including that of the writ petition was taken into consideration by the SLC. Thus in all, 33 applications were considered against 7 (Seven) vacancies in the Grade III and Grade IV posts for the year 2003. Consequently, 7 (Seven) candidates were recommended for compassionate appointment including the respondent No. 6 while the petitioner was not recommended for such appointment. Thus in all, 33 applications were considered against 7 (Seven) vacancies in the Grade III and Grade IV posts for the year 2003. Consequently, 7 (Seven) candidates were recommended for compassionate appointment including the respondent No. 6 while the petitioner was not recommended for such appointment. Likewise, in considering the vacancies available and to be filled up for the year 2004, 11 applications of the said year were taken into consideration along with 26 other applications which were carried forward from the previous years. They were considered against 5 vacancies in the Grade III post and one vacancy in the Grade IV post. Consequently, 6 applicants applications were recommended for compassionate appointment which included the respondent No. 7. 9. As may be seen from the DLC Minutes dated 01.04.2015, the SLC clubbed together the applications which were submitted two years prior to the year under consideration while making the selection. This perhaps was on account of the direction passed by this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das(Supra), more particularly, the direction contained in condition No. ‘X’. On this count, I am of the considered opinion that the SLC cannot be faulted with but however, the fact remains that there are other factors and condition precedent laid down in the said decision for the SLC to follow. Condition No. VIII stipulates that the SLC is required to meet at least every 3 months and condition No. VI provides that the financial status of the family of the applicant is to be considered before any recommendation is made. In the present case it is seen that the SLC has not been held at required intervals as was directed but instead, the entire consideration of the application submitted between the years 1992 to 2010 were altogether considered at a time. This, in fact, has led to the applicants under consideration having a lesser of opportunity or chance to be selected for appointment on compassionate ground including the writ petitioner. It may also be noticed that the writ petitioner has taken the specific stand that his financial status is far below then respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and therefore, the SLC in selecting the respondent No. 6 and 7 appears to have ignored condition No. VI stipulated by this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das(Supra). The stand taken in this regard has also not been clarified by the official respondents in their affidavits. 6 and 7 and therefore, the SLC in selecting the respondent No. 6 and 7 appears to have ignored condition No. VI stipulated by this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das(Supra). The stand taken in this regard has also not been clarified by the official respondents in their affidavits. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the case of the writ petitioner for his compassionate appointment had not been properly considered by the SLC. While taking such view, it may also be noticed that after submitting his application in the month of March of the year 2003, the petitioner on his part also did not take any steps and only submitted an application for information under the RTI Act in the month of July, 2015. Therefore, the petitioner on his part has also not been vigilant. However, having regard to the fact that the appointment sought by the writ petitioner is on compassionate basis which is not a regular process of recruitment but a recruitment devised by the State government keeping in mind the welfare of the family members of a deceased employee. Therefore, it will not be fair to reject the writ petition on this ground alone. 10. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the State respondents, more particularly the respondent No. 5 to re-consider the case of the writ petitioner against any available Grade-III or Grade IV posts afresh in terms of the relevant guidelines and law in force. Such consideration should be done by the respondent No. 5 in the next SLC meeting. Thus, the SLC Meeting Minutes dated 01.04.2015, in so far as the writ petition is concerned, stands interfered with. 11. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.