JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. Hisinlo Himb, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. S. Chang, the learned Government Advocate, Nagaland appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent Authorities in not appointing the petitioner as per the compassionate scheme of the Government dated 17.09.2015. 3. The facts as would be available from the materials on record show that the father of the petitioner Lt. Khriesamhalie Rulho was appointed as a Dairy Attendant vide an order dated 28.07.2006 passed by the Director of Agriculture under the Establishment of the Principal, IETC, Medziphema, Nagaland. The father of the petitioner expired on 13.04.2024 leaving behind 5 (five) dependants. The petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate/humanitarian grounds by filing an application on 18.04.2024 and the same was forwarded by the respondent No. 4 to the appropriate authority. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the said application has not yet been considered and as such, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. This Court vide an order dated 29.07.2025 had issued notice. 5. The matter came up before this Court on 28.08.2025 and this Court had asked Ms. S. Chang, the learned Government Advocate, Nagaland appearing on behalf of the respondents to obtain instruction(s), as to whether, the petitioner’s case is under consideration before the Respondent Authorities for appointment on compassionate basis. 6. Today, when the matter is being taken up Ms. S. Chang, the learned Government Advocate, Nagaland places before this Court a chronological list of applicants applying for MTS post under the compassionate ground in the Department of Agriculture of the Government of Nagaland. The said list being relevant is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. 7. From a perusal of the said list, it appears that the petitioner’s name is under consideration and is at serial No. 2, taking into account that the petitioner’s father expired on 13.04.2024 and the father of the person at serial No. 1 expired on 02.03.2022. 8. 7. From a perusal of the said list, it appears that the petitioner’s name is under consideration and is at serial No. 2, taking into account that the petitioner’s father expired on 13.04.2024 and the father of the person at serial No. 1 expired on 02.03.2022. 8. Taking into account that the petitioner’s case is under consideration, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition thereby directing the Respondent Authorities to consider the case of the petitioner strictly in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015 read with the Addendum dated 09.04.2019. 9. A certified copy of the instant judgment be served upon the respondent No. 4 for due compliance. 10. With the above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.