JUDGMENT : (Kaushik Goswami, J.) Heard Mr. K.N Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Gautam, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. This appeal is presented against the order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in I .A. (C) no. 3163/ 2018, whereby the prayer of the appellants for expunging the adverse remarks against them, contained in judgment & order dated 26.09.2016, has been rejected. 3. The facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/ petitioner’s husband died in harness on 02.01.2005 while being employed as a constable in the Forest Department . Accordingly, the respondent No.1/ petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment on 25.11.2005. However, there being no response from the respondent authorities with regard to consideration of the case of the respondent No.1/ petitioner, the respondent No.1/ petitioner filed WP(C) No. 1652 of 2009 before the learned Single Judge, which was disposed of by order dated 27.05.2009 directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the respondent No.1/ petitioner for compassionate appointment as per the directions contained in Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. Vs State of Assam reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674. Despite of the aforesaid direction, the respondent No.1/ petitioner’s case having not been considered in terms of the guidelines laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. (Supra), the respondent No.1/ petitioner filed another writ petition, being WP(C) No. 5079 of 2015. 4. During hearing of the aforesaid writ petition, it was contended on behalf of the Forest Department that the respondent No.1/ petitioner had not submitted her application for compassionate appointment on 25.11.2005, as claimed by her, but only on 08.09.2008. I n view of the aforesaid contention, the learned Single Judge called for the original records and, after perusal of the same, disposed of the said writ petition by judgment & order dated 26.09.2016 with a direction to the respondent authority to consider the case of the respondent No.1/ petitioner for compassionate appointment in the next meeting of the State Level Committee (SLC) . 5. 5. Pertinent that while disposing of the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge observed that “ I n fact, it seems that the respondent No. 2 has been trying to mislead this Court by giving a wrong date while the original records clearly gives inference to the fact that the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment in the year 2005” . 6. Situated thus, the appellant No.1 i.e. Darash Mathur, the then Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & HoFF, Assam (respondent No.2 in WP(C) No. 5079/2015) and appellant No.2 i.e. Shri Bidyut Borthakur, the then Deputy Conservator of Forest, filed an application, being I.A. (C) No. 3163/2018, in WP(C) No. 5079/2015 for expunging the aforesaid remark made against the respondent No.2 in the judgment & order dated 26.09.2016. However, the aforesaid application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 07.06.2024. Accordingly, the present appeal has been preferred against the aforesaid dismissal order. 7. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the adverse remark against the appellant No.1/ respondent No.2 in the judgment & order dated 26.09.2016 was uncalled for and, hence, the order dated 07.06.2024 dismissing the application to expunge such remark from the judgment & order dated 26.09.2016 warrants interference from this Court . 8. Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for respondent no.1 on the other hand submits that the appellant/ respondent No.2 has made wrong statement before this Court and therefore the remark in question warrants no interference from this Court . 9. The issue involved in this appeal is primarily whether the appellant No.1/respondent No.2 had mislead this Court as regards the date of application filed by the respondent No.1/petitioner seeking compassionate appointment. 10. It appears from the letter dated 27.10.2016 issued from the Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests that the Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Force Assam does not have any record of the application for compassionate appointment filed by the respondent No.1/petitioner on 25.11.2005. It further appears that the Conservator of Forests, by letter dated 23.02.2017, sought for a copy of the aforesaid application, claimed to have filed by the appellant, from the Commandant, 1st Assam Forest Protection Force, Guwahati. It further appears that the Conservator of Forests, by letter dated 23.02.2017, sought for a copy of the aforesaid application, claimed to have filed by the appellant, from the Commandant, 1st Assam Forest Protection Force, Guwahati. It further appears that the Commandant 1st Assam Forest Protection Force, Guwahati by letter dated 04.03.2017 informed the Conservator of Forests (Legal) that the copy of the application dated 25.11.2005 was not available in the office records as it had been forwarded to the Office of the PCCF & Head of Forest Force. It further appears that in WP(C) No. 5079/2015 an affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the respondents by Shri Bidyut Borthakur, the then Deputy Conservator of Forest (IT)/appellant No.2 wherein it was stated as under:- “7. That the statement made in paragraph 6 of the petition deponent begs to state that the petitioner's submissions that her application dated 25.11.2005 which was forwarded by the Commandant, Assam Forest Protection Force, Guwahati-29 to the PCCF, Assam vide his forwarding dated 25.11.2005, it may be stated that the said application dated 25.11.2005 does not appear to have been received in the office records of the office of PCCF, Assam. However, an application her dated 08.09.2008 along with complete proposal including her testimonials submitted by the petitioner and the same was duly forwarded by the Commandant, Assam Forest Protection Force, Guwahati-29 to the PCCF, Assam vide his letter No. AFPF/R/17/08/932, dated 12.09.08. It may be stated that no reference has been made about submission of earlier application dated 25.11.2005 in the petitioner's application dated 08.09.2008 even in the forwarding letter dated (12.09.2008) of Commandant, Assam Forest Protection Force, Guwahati-29, Assam. In view of the above, the date of submission of the application of the petitioner has been recorded as 08.09.2008.” 11. Reading of the aforesaid, it appears that the respondent authorities has stated that the application dated 25.11.2005 does not appear to have been available in the Office records of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Assam. A careful scrutiny of the aforesaid statement does not appear to be a misleading statement in as much as it is not the stand of the respondent authorities that the respondent No.1/ petitioner had not made any application whatsoever in the year 2005 but has merely stated that copy of such application is not available in the Office records. A careful scrutiny of the aforesaid statement does not appear to be a misleading statement in as much as it is not the stand of the respondent authorities that the respondent No.1/ petitioner had not made any application whatsoever in the year 2005 but has merely stated that copy of such application is not available in the Office records. However, the learned Single Judge while disposing of WP(C) No. 5079/ 2015 made a remark that the appellant No.1/ respondent No.2 had mislead this Court by giving a wrong date as regards the application submitted by appellant No.1/ respondent No.2 for compassionate appointment . I t further appears that though an application for expunging the aforesaid remark was filed, the learned Single Judge, vide the order under appeal, while dismissing the said application held that the aforesaid remark is not a definite finding but only an observation. Paragraph 17 of the order under appeal is extracted hereunder for ready reference: - “17. A combined reading of the above 3 paragraphs of the impugned order, in the opinion of this Court, does not indicate that the said observation was irrelevant or unjustified. I n any event, there is no definite finding made by this Court and the same is only an observation.” 12. Pertinent that the affidavit -in-opposition filed in the subject writ petition was sworn by appellant No.2 i.e. Bidyut Borthakur and not by the appellant No.1 himself. Be that as it may, as already stated above, there appears no misleading statement in the affidavit -in-opposition filed in the writ petition and therefore the remark of the learned Single Judge in the judgment & order dated 26.09.2016 as regards the appellant no.1/ respondent No.2 misleading this Court appears to us to be uncalled for. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the said remark be expunged from the judgment & order dated 26.09.2016. 13. Ordered accordingly. 14. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. (C) No. 3163/2018 stands set aside. 15. The appeal accordingly stands allowed.