JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. By invoking the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has instituted the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for placing the case of the petitioner before the State Level Committee [SLC] in pursuance of the recommendation dated 06.12.2012 made by the District Level Committee [DLC] in respect of an application the petitioner had submitted seeking his appointment on compassionate ground. 2. The father of the petitioner, Baliram Rongpi was serving as a Forest Guard in the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Sonitpur East Division, Biswanath Chariali and on 26.08.2009, he died-in-harness, after serving in the department for the period of twenty-two years, ten months and sixteen days. After the death of his father, the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent authorities in the Environment & Forest Department for consideration of his case on appointment on compassionate ground in a Grade-III post reserved for Scheduled Tribes [Plains]. After scrutiny of the application, the same was forwarded to the District Level Committee [DLC]. 3. The DLC in its Meeting, held on 06.12.2012, examined and recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment in a Grade-III post in the establishment of the respondent no. 4. The proposal along with the recommendation of the DLC was forwarded in 2016 for placement before the State Level Committee [SLC] for Compassionate Appointment. Due to certain reasons not attributable to the petitioner, the proposal of the petitioner’s compassionate appointment was finally placed before the SLC only in the year 2019. A number of names were forwarded to the SLC for appointment in the Environment & Forest Department and in the establishment of the respondent no. 4 and the petitioner’s name was amongst the persons whose cases were considered by the SLC. It is the contention of the petitioner that despite the case of the petitioner ought to have been given preference to others, such preference was not given. 4. I have heard Mr. D.C. Kathhazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. D. Borah, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 & 5; Mr. I. Barthakur, learned Standing Counsel, Environment & Forest Department for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. 5. Mr. 4. I have heard Mr. D.C. Kathhazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. D. Borah, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 & 5; Mr. I. Barthakur, learned Standing Counsel, Environment & Forest Department for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. 5. Mr. Kathhazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the DLC, Sonitpur had examined and approved the names of five persons for appointment on compassionate ground, in which, the name of the petitioner was mentioned at Serial no. 2. After the recommendation of the DLC made on 06.12.2012, when the case of the petitioner was forwarded for consideration of the SLC along with others, due to reasons not attributable to the petitioner and apparently attributable to the respondent authorities, the case of the petitioner was not considered by the SLC for a number of years. The petitioner came to learn about these vital facts when he sought the necessary information through applications filed under the Right to Information [RTI] Act in the year 2020. The State Public Information Officer [SPIO] vide an Office Letter dated 28.01.2021 directed the respondent no. 4 to provide the information. But, the application of the petitioner under RTI Act had been kept pending in the office of the respondent no. 4 without any justifiable ground and as a result, the name of the petitioner has been left to be considered by the SLC. On the other hand, the cases of other persons, whose cases were less meritorious than the petitioner’s, were considered by the SLC. 6. In response, Mr. Barthakur, learned Standing Counsel, Environment & Forest Department has submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court raising grievance about non-consideration of his application for appointment on compassionate grounds after more than a decade from the death of his father. The matter of appointment on compassionate ground is not a right. In view of such long lapse of time, the object and purpose of providing immediate relief to the family of the petitioner has been lost. The matter of appointment on compassionate ground is not a right. In view of such long lapse of time, the object and purpose of providing immediate relief to the family of the petitioner has been lost. He has submitted that after considering a long line of decisions in the matter of compassionate appointment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others , (2025) 5 SCC 712 , has recently settled the principles and as per the principles so laid down, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate ground at such distant point of time. 7. It is settled that, as a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly in adherence to the principles laid down in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment or any other consideration is permissible. The government or the public authorities are not at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the procedure laid down by the rules for the post. This general rule is ordinarily to be followed in every case. However, some exceptions have been carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness. If the employee as the sole bread winner of the family expires, leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration and taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet. It is taking into such humanitarian angle a policy is ordinarily adopted to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The object of granting compassionate appointment is, therefore, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis befallen on it. It is also settled that mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The financial condition of the family of the deceased is required to be examined thoroughly. The object of granting compassionate appointment is, therefore, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis befallen on it. It is also settled that mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The financial condition of the family of the deceased is required to be examined thoroughly. Only if it is found that the family will not be able to meet the crisis that has befallen on it due to the sudden demise of the only bread-earner in the family, the provision for employment on compassionate ground can be resorted to. The post meant for appointment on compassionate ground are only posts which fall in the categories of Class-III or Class-IV which can be offered on compassionate grounds. 8. It was as early as in the year 1994, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana , ( 1994) 4 SCC 138, has observed as under :- 6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 9. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others , (2025) 5 SCC 712 , after considering a number of precedents on the point of compassionate appointment, has culled out the number of principles which are as under :- 32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge: 32.1. 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. 32.2. 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. 32.2. 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. 32.3. 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. 32.4. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. 32.5. 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. 33. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the breadearner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a breadwinner, has been overcome. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a breadwinner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered the question whether applications for compassionate appointments could be considered after a delay of several years. The Hon’ble Court has held the view that if in a case there is 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 or lost. In such circumstances the 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 sources. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though 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 related to the financial condition and hardships faced by the dependants 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. 11. In the case in hand, the father of the petitioner expired on 26.08.2009. The petitioner’s date of birth is 31.12.1981. Therefore, at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was more than 27 years of age. 11. In the case in hand, the father of the petitioner expired on 26.08.2009. The petitioner’s date of birth is 31.12.1981. Therefore, at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was more than 27 years of age. In the application filed in by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner mentioned about two elder brothers and one younger brother of about 25 years of age. The petitioner had, at that point of time, the academic qualification of Higher Secondary Examination pass. After consideration and recommendation of his case by the DLC on 06.12.2012, the petitioner has approached this Court by the writ petition only on 17.08.2021, that is, near about twelve years after the death of his father and about nine years after recommendation of the DLC. Such inordinate delay has taken the very basis on which the application for compassionate appointment to be considered. The writ petition has clearly suffered from delay and laches. By the time the writ petition is preferred, the claim for compassionate appointment had become stale. The staleness of the claim has taken away the very basis of providing compassionate appointment and has, thus, merit its rejection. 12. In the backdrop of such fact situation, this Court does not find any ground, not to speak of any good and sufficient ground, to proceed further with the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition having been found devoid of any merit and suffering from delay and laches, is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.