JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Nayak, learned additional senior Government advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 and Mr. A. Deka, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department. 2. The father of the petitioner late Tara Leima Singha, who was working as an Assistant Teacher in A Radha Maipuri ME School, died in harness on 8.8.2000. Upon his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate on 11.7.2001. The said application was placed before the DLC of Cachar district on 31.7.2012 and by its resolution of the said date, the petitioner was recommended for compassionate appointment against the post of Assistant Teacher in LP School. The DLC had worked out that for the given period, 33 vacancies were available for compassionate appointment in respect of Assistant Teacher in LP School and had specifically recommended the petitioner against one of the 33 available vacancies. 3. When the matter was placed before the SLC in its meeting held on 20.7.2017, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by merely stating that it is an old case. 4. The law in respect of compassionate appointment is being provided by this court in its pronouncements made in Achyut Ranjan Das v. State of Assam, 2006 (4) GLT 674 and Faziron Nessa v. State of Assam, 2010 (4) GLT 340. Nowhere in the said two decisions, it is stated that a claim for compassionate appointment is to be rejected on the ground of it being an old case. All that is provided is that in the event an application for compassionate appointment could not be considered for unavailability of vacancies for a period of more than two years, such claim need not be considered again. But in order to arrive at such conclusion, there must be a consideration and upon such consideration, there also must be a rejection that the compassionate appointment could not be made due to lack of vacancy. 5. In the instant case, materials on record did not indicate any such consideration that the case of the petitioner was earlier rejected for more than two years due to unavailability of vacancy. It being so, the stand of the SLC to reject the claim of the petitioner by stating that it is an old case, cannot be accepted. 6. 5. In the instant case, materials on record did not indicate any such consideration that the case of the petitioner was earlier rejected for more than two years due to unavailability of vacancy. It being so, the stand of the SLC to reject the claim of the petitioner by stating that it is an old case, cannot be accepted. 6. Accordingly, the rejection of the petitioner by the SLC in its resolution dated 20.7.2017 is set aside and the matter is remanded back before the next available SLC for a fresh consideration as per law. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.