JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned counsel for the Forest Department and Mr. N. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 2. The father of the petitioner who was serving as a Peon in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Goalpara died in harness on 06.06.2008. On his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 04.09.2008. The said application of the petitioner was placed before the DLC of Goalpara district and by the minutes of the DLC held on 07.09.2019, the petitioner was recommended for appointment on compassionate ground. When the claim of the petitioner was placed before the SLC on 25.04.2011, the petitioner was recommended for the post of forest guard against the 8 available vacancies of the year 2009. Although many persons had been appointed from the list of persons recommended by the SLC of 25.04.2011, the petitioner was not so appointed. Subsequently, the claim of the petitioner was again placed before the SLC held on 16.06.2011. This time also the petitioner was recommended against the vacancy of Grade III post for the year 2009. Inspite of two such recommendations, the petitioner had not appointed. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is instituted. 3. We have taken note of that the petitioner may had a very good cause of action in the year 2011, when he was recommended by the SLC, but the passage of 9 (nine) years where the petitioner slept over the matter would definitely reduce his legal right for a consideration after 9 (nine) years. The petitioner takes a stand that in the year 2014, one Aminur Rahman had made an application under the RTI seeking the reason as well as the recommendations of the SLC so that they can carry forward the grievance. It is stated that, Aminur Rahman was provided with the information for the year 2019 and thereafter, the petitioner is approaching the Court in the year 2020. 4. When we put a question to the petitioner as to whether the claim for information was also made by the petitioner, the answer given is that the RTI request made by one Aminur Rahman would also be relied upon by the petitioner. 5. 4. When we put a question to the petitioner as to whether the claim for information was also made by the petitioner, the answer given is that the RTI request made by one Aminur Rahman would also be relied upon by the petitioner. 5. Such stand appears to be fundamentally weak to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner was pursuing his remedies without sleeping over the matter. 6. Be that as it may, as the petitioner was recommended against the specific and identified vacancy. If such vacancy still exists, the respondents may consider the petitioner for appointment against the earlier recommendation by the SLC dated 25.04.2011 and 16.06.2011. 7. Upon giving a consideration, the authorities may pass a reasoned order and inform the petitioner about the outcome. While doing the same, the respondent authorities shall also take into consideration that the other candidates who were recommended by the same SLC had been appointed in the meantime and if the petitioner is the only person who was left out, it would be a case of discrimination. Writ petition stands disposed of.