JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. 1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging, inter alia the non-consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that his father, Dilip Kumar Roy, who was working as Instructor, Printing Shop of HRH, the Prince of Wales Institute of Engineering and Technology, Jorhat and had died in harness on 05.02.2012. The petitioner, who claims to be eligible, had applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 07.04.2012. However, the District Level Committee (DLC), Jorhat had rejected the application on 09.07.2012. Thereafter in the year 2015, the petitioner had again made a fresh application. Though the DLC had observed that the application was delayed, the matter was nonetheless forwarded to the State Level Committee (SLC). The SLC however vide the impugned decision dated 25.07.2017 had rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of late submission. It is this action, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 3. I have heard Shri A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. D. Das Barman, learned State Counsel and Shri D. Upamanyu, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is unreasonable and arbitrary. It is contended that the application for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner within the prescribed time and the same was also duly forwarded by the concerned authorities. He has also submitted that the petitioner was eligible for such appointment in all respects and therefore, a due consideration ought to have been made. 5. Per contra, Ms. Das Barman, learned State Counsel has also highlighted the aspect of delay in approaching the Court and also the aspect of the claim for any such direction in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari, (2023) SCC Online SC 219. 6. Shri Upamanyu, learned Standing Counsel of the Department has endorsed the submission of the learned State Counsel and has further submitted that more than 13 years have passed since the death of the government servant and therefore, the scheme of appointment on compassionate ground will not be applicable. 7. Debabrata Tiwari, (2023) SCC Online SC 219. 6. Shri Upamanyu, learned Standing Counsel of the Department has endorsed the submission of the learned State Counsel and has further submitted that more than 13 years have passed since the death of the government servant and therefore, the scheme of appointment on compassionate ground will not be applicable. 7. The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. 8. The materials on record make it clear that the death of the father of the petitioner was on 05.02.2012 and the application appears to be made on 07.04.2012. Be that as it may, the DLC, Jorhat on the second occasion had forwarded the case of the petitioner though with an observation that there was late submission of the application. However, the SLC, vide the impugned decision dated 25.07.2017 had rejected his case on the same ground. 9. Though the petitioner had formulated certain grounds to assail the impugned decision of rejection, the aspect with regard to the very objective of the scheme for compassionate appointment cannot be overlooked. The very objective of the scheme, which is an exception to the general mode of recruitment, is to give immediate succor to a family which has lost its sole breadwinner who was a Government servant and such objective would not survive after a gap of 13 years. In other words, even if the factor which was taken into consideration by the SLC for rejection, namely, late submission may have some force, the ultimate objective of the scheme, as noted above has to be adhered to. 10. The law on compassionate appointment has been elaborately explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra). In the said case, almost all the earlier cases on the subject of compassionate appointment have been discussed and the principles have been laid down. It has been reiterated that an appointment on compassionate ground is a departure from the normal rule and is an exception which is meant only to enable the bereaved family to tie over the sudden financial crisis on the death of a government servant while in service. It has also been clarified that it is not a vested right and the aspect of delay would be of paramount consideration. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow- “7.2. It has also been clarified that it is not a vested right and the aspect of delay would be of paramount consideration. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow- “7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge: (i) That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e. to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. (ii) Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. (iii) Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. (iv) That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. (v) In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members. Together with the income from any other source.” 11. On the aspect of delay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), while examining the said aspect from the context of the scheme has also laid down that even if the delay is on account of the authorities, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. The relevant part as observed in paragraph 7.5 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below:- “7.5. The relevant part as observed in paragraph 7.5 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below:- “7.5. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, an noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as thought it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee.” 12. An appointment on compassionate ground is a departure from the normal mode of recruitment wherein a certain quota (5%) is reserved and the objective is to enable a bereaved family losing their sole breadwinner who was a Government servant to overcome the immediate financial crisis. It has been laid down that such appointment cannot be held to be a matter of any vested right and it is not a source of recruitment. 13. In the instant case, the issue regarding delay is required to be considered vis-à-vis the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 7.5 of the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra). It has been clearly laid down that in case of prolonged delay either on the part of the applicant or the authorities, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. It has been clearly laid down that in case of prolonged delay either on the part of the applicant or the authorities, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. In view of such law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has no other option but to hold that any further direction for consideration of the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground after a period of about 13 years from the death of a Government servant would not be in sync with the objective of the scheme for compassionate appointment. 14. Accordingly, this Court is not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioner. 15. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.