JUDGMENT Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. - Heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. 2. The father of the petitioner who was working in the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Assam died in harness on 28.01.2015. On his demise, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment. The DLC of Kokrajhar district while considering the said application of the petitioner made a recommendation for appointment as Junior Assistant/LDA in a given circumstance where out of cadre strength of 10 (ten), 1 (one) vacancy was found available for compassionate appointment for the year 2015/2016. Accordingly, recommendation was made and a request was made to the Member Secretary to submit a proposal to parent department i.e. PHED for doing the needful. 3. Be that as it may, although the recommendation of DLC was dated 20.08.2016, the same was placed before SLC in its meeting of 14.05.2020. The SLC rejected the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner with an observation that "does not fall under 5% cadre strength". 4. We have taken note of that there is a gap of 4 (four) years between the recommendation of DLC and the matter being taken by SLC. Admittedly, the vacancy was available within the acceptable cadre strength in the year 2016 and it is not known to anyone as to what happen to the vacancy between the years 2016 and 2020. The SLC has not given any consideration to the said aspect. 5. Further the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 of the Personnel (B) Department of the Government of Assam in Clause 15 provides that if sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office, it is open to the Administration Department/Office to take up the matter with other Department/Office of the Government to provide at an early appointment of compassionate. The office memorandum provides the requirement of an early appointment of compassionate ground. The gap of 4 (four) years between the recommendation by the DLC and the consideration of the SLC appears to be unexplained. 6. The office memorandum provides the requirement of an early appointment of compassionate ground. The gap of 4 (four) years between the recommendation by the DLC and the consideration of the SLC appears to be unexplained. 6. For the reasons above, the matter stands remanded back to the SLC to be taken in its next available meeting and pass a specific order by considering as to what happened to the vacancy against which the petitioner was recommended in the year 2016 and thereupon pass a reasoned order on the recommendation which was made in favour of the petitioner. Further, if vacancy is not available in the PHED as per Clause 15 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, consideration be given as to whether the petitioner can be accommodate in any other department 7. Both the aforesaid requirements indicated above in our view are the requirements of law and the SLC itself cannot absolve its responsibility to look into the matter from the proper perspective. wxyz Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. zyxw