JUDGMENT : Kalyan Rai Surana, J. 1. Heard Mr. N.K. Murray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider her candidature for appointment on compassionate ground as her husband had died-in-harness on 13.11.2005 while serving in the Assam Police under the establishment of the Superintendent of Police (Border). 3. Though the petitioner claims that her application and standard form of application was submitted on 25.11.2005 but the respondents have disputed the same in their affidavit-in-opposition and it is claimed that the application for compassionate appointment was first received by the respondent authorities on 25.09.2007 and the formal process for selection on compassionate ground was initiated under memo dated 21.11.2007. 4. From the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 8 and documents appended thereto, the learned counsel for the petitioner has successfully been able to demonstrate that although vide proceedings of DLC dated 29.08.2008, the case of the petitioner was put up for consideration but there is no remark in Annexure-2 of the said affidavit-in-opposition against the name of the petitioner. The said Annexure-2 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 8 discloses that in the establishment of the office of the Superintendent of Police (B), Assam, in respect of Grade-III cadre for compassionate appointment, 19 posts were available for junior assistant, 292 posts were available for UB constable and 8 posts were available for AB constable and there were 3 vacancies for Grade-IV post. The minutes of the DLC dated 29.08.2008 discloses that only 8 persons were appointed in Grade-III post and only one person was appointed for Grade-IV post. Therefore, it appears from the said minutes dated 29.08.2008 (Annexure-2 of the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent no. 8) that sufficient nos. of vacancies were available for being filled up on compassionate ground. 5. At this stage, the learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate has produced a letter bearing no. KPE.49/2015/251 dated 21.09.2021 from the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati to the effect that as per the vacancies available in the concerned department at that time, the proposal of one Bijoy Das was recommended by the DLC and as such, the proposal of the present petitioner was regretted. Advocate has produced a letter bearing no. KPE.49/2015/251 dated 21.09.2021 from the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati to the effect that as per the vacancies available in the concerned department at that time, the proposal of one Bijoy Das was recommended by the DLC and as such, the proposal of the present petitioner was regretted. The said letter is made a part of the record. The contents of the said letter, is found to be contradictory to the materials available in the minutes of the proceeding of DLC meeting held on 29.08.2008. The learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has not been able to show that the DLC had regretted the appointment made to the petitioner. 6. The learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate has submitted that at the present point of time, the OM dated 01.06.2015 is in force as the earlier office memorandum which was then prevailing by which the petitioner had applied, has been overridden by the present OM and accordingly, it is submitted that as per the current OM dated 01.06.2015, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered. In this regard the Court is of the considered opinion that as the DLC took up the case of the petitioner in its meeting held on 29.08.2008 but no remark was made against the candidature of the petitioner, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is not found sustainable. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be punished for lack of the wisdom of the District Level Committee to put any remark against the candidature of the petitioner in its DLC meeting held on 29.08.2008. 7. Therefore, in view of the discussions above, the petitioner has been able to make out a case that her candidature for the appointment on compassionate ground requires to be revisited by the DLC on compassionate ground. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed by providing that the case of the petitioner shall be taken up and considered in the next meeting of the DLC on compassionate appointment in respect of the establishment of the office of the Superintendent of Police (Border) (respondent no. 8), to be taken up on the basis of OM which was prevailing on 25.09.2007, the date when the respondents claim that the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground. 8), to be taken up on the basis of OM which was prevailing on 25.09.2007, the date when the respondents claim that the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground. It is further provided that while considering the candidature of the petitioner, the DLC/SLC would not reject the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the application of the petitioner has spent force, or on any other technical ground that no posts are available because as per DLC minutes dated 29.08.2008, sufficient unfilled vacancies had existed. 8. The exercise for reconsideration of the candidature of the petitioner shall be carried out within 31.03.2022 with intimation to the petitioner about the result of such consideration. 9. The petitioner shall provide a submit a certified copy of the order before the respondent no. 8. 10. This writ petition stands allowed to the extend as indicated above.