JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. HK Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. TC Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. The husband of the petitioner Dweep Kumar Bhagawaty, who was working as a Head Constable under the Home (A) Department of the Government of Assam, died in harness on 13.11.2011 in an accident during duty hours. On his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 07.12.2011. The said application was considered by the DLC of Sonitpur district in its meeting of 18.02.2012 and after evaluating the existence of vacancies in the establishment of the Superintendent of Police, Sonitpur in respect of Grade-III post, which was evaluated to be 10 in number, the petitioner was accordingly recommended in a Grade-III post. 3. When the recommendation was placed before the SLC in its meeting of 06.06.2017, the recommendation of the DLC was rejected by the SLC by considering her against the post of a Constable by stating the reason that the petitioner was over aged for the post of Constable. Being aggrieved, WP(C) No. 6775/2018 was instituted by the petitioner, wherein by the order dated 31.10.2018, a conclusion was arrived at that when the application was made, the petitioner was very much within the prescribed age limit for appointment to a Government post. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the SLC for a fresh consideration. 4. In response thereof, the order dated 08.08.2019 had been passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Home and Political Department, wherein the reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is provided which is extracted as below:- “Whereas; the case of the petitioner was placed again in the meeting of SLC held on 2/04/2019 and after considering all aspects SLC couldn’t recommend Smti Babi Bhagawati for the post of Constable since as per Section 21 of Assam Police Manual, the maximum age for appointment to a post of Constable is 25 years and the petitioner also couldn’t avail any age relaxation as she belonged to the General category; and,”. 5. 5. A reading of the reasoning given by the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Home and Political Department makes it discernible that the SLC had again rejected the recommendation of the DLC in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the maximum age for appointment to the post of a Constable is 25 years and no relaxation can be made for the purpose. 6. Mr. TC Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondents strenuously urged that the police force is a specialized force and therefore, in respect thereof for appointment as a Constable, the upper age limit cannot be relaxed and therefore, the SLC had rightly rejected the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. As regards the rejection by the SLC of the recommendation by the DLC in favour of the petitioner for the reason that the upper age limit for the post of Constable is 25 years and it cannot be relaxed, we take note of that the DLC had recommended the petitioner against a post of Grade-III and not specifically against the post of Constable and the same was done after evaluating the 10 vacancies available in the cadre of Grade-III in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Sonitpur. 9. From such point of view, we have to understand that the SLC had misdirected itself by considering the petitioner against a post of Constable. Secondly, as per the judgment of this Court dated 24.08.2010 in WP(C) No. 2989/2010 in paragraph 7, the concept of upper age limit for Government service is not applicable in respect of a compassionate appointment. 10. From such point of view also, the rejection on the ground that the petitioner being beyond the upper age limit is unacceptable in law. 11. Thirdly, as per paragraph 15 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, if a person cannot be recommended for compassionate appointment against the vacancies in the Department where the deceased employee had worked, there is a corresponding duty cast upon the authorities to consider such application against any vacancies that may be available in any other Departments. The SLC while rejecting the claim of the petitioner had also not taken note of the aforesaid proposition of law. 12. The SLC while rejecting the claim of the petitioner had also not taken note of the aforesaid proposition of law. 12. Considering the matter in its entirety, the rejection of the recommendation of the DLC of Sonitpur district in favour of the petitioner in its meeting dated 18.02.2012 by the SLC in its meeting of 02.04.2019 on the ground that the petitioner being above the age of 25 years cannot be considered for the post of a Constable is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the SLC for a fresh consideration strictly as per law as indicated above. In doing so, the SLC shall also take note of that the DLC had recommended the petitioner against a verified vacancy of a Grade-III and not to a post of Constable. The matter now be placed before the next available SLC for its fresh consideration. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above.