JUDGMENT : R.M. Chhaya, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment & order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.110/2022, the original petitioner/appellant has preferred this intra-Court appeal. 2. The following facts emerge from the record of this appeal. The father of the appellant, namely, Lal Mamud Choudhury, was serving as an Assistant Teacher in Barbhita Dolorpather M.E. Madrassa, who died on 17.03.2006 due to severe illness during the course of his service. As the record unfolds, the mother of the appellant filed a representation dated 10.06.2016 before the respondent No.5 for appointment of her elder son, i.e. the present appellant, on compassionate ground to a Grade-IV post under the existing Die in Harness Scheme. On receipt of such representation, the respondent No.5 advised the appellant to submit his application on prescribed format. Accordingly, the appellant filed such an application. 3. The application for compassionate appointment was placed before the District Level Selection Committee in its meeting held on 09.09.2019. However, the said Committee did not recommend the candidature of the appellant due to want of eligible vacant post of Grade-IV. The record further indicates that being aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant/original petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.4928/2021, which came to be disposed of with an order dated 28.09.2021, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to quash and set aside the decision taken by the District Level Committee in its meeting held on 09.09.2019 and observed thus:- “4. Being aggrieved, this writ petition is instituted on the ground that as per the OM dated 01.06.2015 there is a provision that if vacancies are not available in the department where the deceased had worked, consideration can also be made against a vacancy that may be available in any other department. From the said point of view, we are in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner on his submission and accordingly remand the matter back to the DLC of Barpeta district to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment against any vacant post in any other department for which he may be suitably qualified for. 5. In the event, the DLC is of the view that vacancies of the year 2016 exist in respect of any other department for which the petitioner would be suitably qualified, appropriate orders be passed. 5. In the event, the DLC is of the view that vacancies of the year 2016 exist in respect of any other department for which the petitioner would be suitably qualified, appropriate orders be passed. If the DLC upon verification of the records finds that no such vacancy exists again a reasoned order be passed and be communicated to the petitioner. 6. The application of the petitioner be accordingly placed before the next available DLC of Barpeta district. 7. Writ petition stands partly allowed in the manner as indicated above.” 4. After the said order, the application filed by the appellant/original petitioner was again examined by the District Level Committee. The District Level Committee, as per the direction issued by this Court, examined the application filed by the appellant in its meeting held on 01.10.2021 considering the vacancy as existed in the year 2016. The District Level Committee after reexamining the application filed by the appellant/original petitioner rejected his proposal on the ground of non-eligibility for the post of Assistant Teacher (Grade-III) as the appellant/original petitioner was not qualified and secondly, for want of vacant post in Grade-IV in the year 2016. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the appellant/original petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition being WP(C) No.110/2022. 5. Relying upon the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, it was contended by the appellant/original petitioner before the learned Single Judge that the respondents have not undertaken any exercise to accommodate the appellant in a vacant post in any other Department. Relying upon the information received under the Right to Information Act, it was contended that the concept of appointment on compassionate ground has not been followed by the respondents. It was also contended before the learned Single Judge that the appellant/original petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment from the 5% reserved quota for widow, sons and daughters of the service holders, who died in harness. Denying the fact that there is no vacancy, it was contended by the appellant/original petitioner that the same has not been properly examined by the District Level Committee. 6. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent authorities have filed their affidavit-in-opposition and have stated thus:- “2. Denying the fact that there is no vacancy, it was contended by the appellant/original petitioner that the same has not been properly examined by the District Level Committee. 6. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent authorities have filed their affidavit-in-opposition and have stated thus:- “2. That the deponent begs to state that the District Level Committee (DLC) meeting for appointment on compassionate ground for Barpeta district was held on 01/10/2021 and in compliance to the Order dated 28/9/2021 passed in WP(C) No.4928/2021, the proposal of the petitioner was examined. On examining the petitioner's case it was seen that there was no vacancy in the Grade-IV category on the concerned office as well as in any of the other Govt. department of Barpeta district in the year 2016. Though there were vacancy for the post of Assistant Teacher and Grade-III post, the DLC could not consider the proposal of the petitioner due to his non-eligibility for the said posts. As such the claim of the petitioner could not be considered and thereby rejected. However, the aforesaid points while examining the case of the petitioner was not recorded in the minutes dated 01/10/2021 due to inadvertent mistake and therefore the Order dated 20/01/2022 was passed with an intimation to the petitioner with regards to the decision of the District Level Committee meeting held on 01/10/2021. 3. That it is respectfully stated that there was no vacancy in the Grade IV post in any department of the Barpeta District including the office of the Deputy Commissioner during 2016 to accommodate the petitioner on compassionate ground. The petitioner did not have the requisite qualification for appointment in the post of Grade III. Under the above facts and circumstances, it is humbly submitted that there is no merit in the claim made by the petitioner and there is no violation of the fundamental right by the respondents and further the claim made by the petitioner is not amenable to the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.” 7. The respondent authorities have also relied upon the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Chairman, District Level Committee and Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, copy of which has been served upon the appellant/original petitioner. The respondent authorities have also relied upon the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Chairman, District Level Committee and Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, copy of which has been served upon the appellant/original petitioner. The said order reads as under:- “Order No.BPE-01/2022/70: Perused the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court's order dated 28/09/2021 passed in WP(C) No.4928/2021 wherein the directives of Hon'ble High Court at Para-5 states that ‘In the event, the DLC is of the view that vacancies of the year 2016 exist in respect of any other department for which the petitioner would be suitably qualified, appropriate orders be passed. If the DLC upon verification of the records finds that no such vacancy exists again a reasoned order be passed and be communicated to the petitioner.’ The District Level Committee meeting for appointment on compassionate ground for Barpeta District held on 01-10-2021 at 10:00 AM in the Conference Hall in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta also examined the proposal of Farukh Abdullah Choudhury for appointment on compassionate ground in compliance of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court order dtd 28.09.2021 (WP(C) No.4928/2021). As there was no vacancy in the Grade-IV category, other options were explored. It emerged that post of Assistant Teacher, Grade-III was there, but his proposal could not be considered due to his non-eligibility for the post of Assistant Teacher, Grade-III. As indicated before, there was no vacant post of Grade-IV in the concerned office nor in any of the other Govt. Department of Barpeta district in the year 2016 for appointment on compassionate ground. In view of the facts aforementioned paragraphs, the undersigned is of the view that the case of the petitioner could not be considered by the District Level Committee in its meeting held on 01-10-2021 and this office presently is not in a position to absorb the proposal of the petitioner in any Heads of Offices under Barpeta District due to want of eligible vacant post of Grade-IV under compassionate ground. The claim of the petitioner namely Farukh Abdullah Choudhury, S/o -Late Lal Mamud Choudhury could not be considered and is hereby rejected.” 8. The claim of the petitioner namely Farukh Abdullah Choudhury, S/o -Late Lal Mamud Choudhury could not be considered and is hereby rejected.” 8. The appellant has also filed an affidavit-in-reply denying the contentions made by the respondent authorities in its affidavit-in-opposition and contended that the respondents cannot be permitted to supplement any fresh reason by way of affidavit and heavily relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. -Vs-Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 and prayed that the appeal be allowed. 9. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties, while dismissing the writ petition, has observed thus:- “6. We have carefully perused all the statements, but none of the statements reveals the existence of vacancy in any other Department in Barpeta district during the year 2016 against which the petitioner could have been considered. The statement from the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Barpeta shows the existence of one vacancy of a Forest Guard, but the statement does not reflect as to of which period the vacancy was of. From the said statement also we cannot infer that the Deputy Commissioner had filed an incorrect affidavit stating that no vacancy existed in any Department in the year 2016. 7. Mr. KR Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner also raises a further issue that the Deputy Commissioner had changed its reason by means of an affidavit in a pending writ petition to justify the rejection by the DLC dated 01.10.2021 and accordingly, refers to the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill & Another -vs-The Chief Election Commissioner, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 . 8. The proposition laid down by the Supreme Court is that if a reason is provided in a given order, but in the Court proceeding by virtue of an affidavit the said reason is changed and a new reason is given to justify an administrative act, the same would not be maintainable in law. But in the instant case, as noticed above, there was no change of reason being provided by the Deputy Commissioner. But in the instant case, as noticed above, there was no change of reason being provided by the Deputy Commissioner. All that the Deputy Commissioner by virtue of the affidavit had done was that as required by the specific order of this Court, he had elaborated the earlier reason on the basis of materials available on record and therefore, the same cannot be understood to be a change of reason being adopted by the Deputy Commissioner. 9. Although notice had not been issued in this writ petition, but because of the progress of the petition on various dates, the pleadings are also completed and therefore, we took up the writ petition for its final consideration. 10. In the absence of any vacancies being indicated in any of the materials produced which could have lead the Court to a conclusion that in spite of existence of vacancies in any Department during the year 2016, the petitioner was wrongly rejected by the DLC or that the Deputy Commissioner filed a wrong affidavit, we are unable to accept the said contention of the petitioner assailing the validity of the rejection by the DLC dated 01.10.2021.” 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present appeal is filed. 11. Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 5 and Mr. R.K. Borah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent No.4. 12. Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant/original petitioner has contended that the reason given by the District Level Committee in not considering the application of the appellant/original petitioner that there is no vacancy, is dehors the record. It was also contended by Mr. Patgiri, learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner that as per the direction issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in earlier writ petition being WP(C) No.4928/2021, it was incumbent upon the District Level Committee to consider the vacancies as existed in 2016 in respect of any other Department in which the appellant could be suitably qualified has not been done by the respondent authorities while rejecting the application of the appellant/original petitioner. Referring to the minutes of the District Level Committee in its meeting held on 01.10.2021, it was contended by Mr. Referring to the minutes of the District Level Committee in its meeting held on 01.10.2021, it was contended by Mr. Patgiri, learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner that there is no consideration of the fact that whether vacancies exist in the year 2016 or not. 13. Referring to the averments made in Paragraphs 2 & 3 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner contended that the respondent authorities have tried to improve their case in the affidavit, which is not permissible. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), more particularly Paragraph 8 thereof, it was contended that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the respondents have tried to improve their case and the reason put forward in the affidavit is not found in the order and is not found in the minutes of the District Level Committee. It was also contended by Mr. Patgiri, learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that as per the information received through RTI, in 2016 vacancies were there, which has not been considered by the District Level Committee. On the aforesaid ground, Mr. Patgiri, learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner contended that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the respondent authorities are required to be directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. 14. Per contra, Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department and Mr. R.K. Borah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondents have relied upon their affidavit-in-opposition. Learned counsels for the respondents referring to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in earlier writ petition being WP(C) No.4928/2021 contended that on remand, the District Level Committee meet on 01.10.2021 and considered the position of the vacancies in Grade-IV in the year 2016 and thereafter, having found that there is no vacancy has rejected the application for compassionate ground made by the appellant/original petitioner. The learned counsels for the respondents contended that the learned Single Judge has committed no error much less any error apparent on the face of record, which requires interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and the appeal being bereft of any merits deserves to be dismissed. 15. The learned counsels for the respondents contended that the learned Single Judge has committed no error much less any error apparent on the face of record, which requires interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and the appeal being bereft of any merits deserves to be dismissed. 15. No other or further submissions, contentions or grounds have been raised by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 16. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, it is a matter of fact that the father of the appellant/original petitioner died on 17.03.2006. It is an admitted position that the father of the appellant/original petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher at Barbhita Dolorpather M.E. Madrassa. It is also an admitted position that the appellant/original petitioner does not possess requisite qualification for being considered and appointed as an Assistant Teacher and, therefore, the only option which was left with the respondent authorities was to examine the possibility of considering the application for compassionate appointment filed by the appellant for Grade-IV post. It is a matter of fact that the petitioner has approached this Court twice. In the earlier writ petition, while remanding the proceedings as per Paragraph 4, quoted hereinabove, the learned Single Judge was pleased to remand the matter back to District Level Committee of Barpeta District to consider the case of the appellant/original petitioner for compassionate appointment against any vacant post in any other Department, keeping in view the vacancies of the year 2016. It has been clearly averred in the order dated 20.01.2022, whereby the Chairman of the District Level Committee, Barpeta communicated the decision taken by the District Level Committee to the appellant/original petitioner, which establishes the fact beyond any doubt that in the meeting held on 01.10.2022 the District Level Committee considered the directions issued by this Court in Paragraph 5 of its judgment & order dated 28.09.2022 passed in WP(C) No.4928/2021 and has considered the vacancies of the year 2016. It is specifically provided in the said order that there was no vacant post of Grade-IV in the concerned office nor in any other Government Department of Barpeta District in the year 2016. 17. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have tried to change or alter their case in their affidavit-in-opposition. It is specifically provided in the said order that there was no vacant post of Grade-IV in the concerned office nor in any other Government Department of Barpeta District in the year 2016. 17. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have tried to change or alter their case in their affidavit-in-opposition. Hence, the contention raised by the appellant/original petitioner that the respondents have tried to improve their case in the affidavit is wrong as in the order dated 20.01.2022, there is a clear mention that the District Level Committee in its meeting held on 01.10.2021 has considered the remanded proceedings by this Court and has considered the directions issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Paragraph 5 scrupulously and in letter and spirit. In facts of this case, ratio laid down by Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), will not be applicable. 18. Compassionate appointment is granted to see that the bereaved family comes out of harness and not as an alternative mode of recruitment. Even if the contention about 5% quota raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner is examined, if there is no vacancy, no supernumerary post can be considered while considering an application for compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge has examined all the aspects including the information relied upon by the appellant/original petitioner obtained under Right to Information Act and has succinctly come to the conclusion that the decision taken by the District Level Committee in its meeting held on 01.10.2022 is appropriate. 19. We are in total agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge. No interference is called for as no error is found in the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge, which warrants exercise of appellate jurisdiction by this Court. The appeal being bereft of merit deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.