JUDGMENT : RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J. 1. Heard Mr R K Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr C K S Baruah, learned GA, Assam. 2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the decision of the State Level Committee taken in the meeting dated 18.01.2020, whereby the case of the petitioner for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground in Grade-IV post was rejected and for a direction to the State Level Committee to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in a Grade-IV or any other post in the office of the Executive Engineer, Industries and Commerce, Guwahati, in terms of the decision of the District Level Committee taken on 14.11.2017. 3. The assertion made in the writ petition is that the petitioner is the son of an employee of the Industries and Commerce Department, who died in harness on 17.01.2014, leaving behind his wife, a daughter and two sons. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed an application before the respondent authorities to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The District Level Committee, thereafter, met on 14th of November, 2017, wherein the name of the petitioner was shown to be recommended against the Grade-IV post in the office of the Executive Engineer, Industries and Commerce, Guwahati. After the said recommendation have been made, the State Level Committee considered the case of the petitioner in its meeting held on 18th of January, 2020 and the case of the petitioner along with 18 (eighteen) other recommended persons were placed before the State Level Committee. Two of the candidates were considered for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme, while the cases of 6 (six) candidates were directed to be placed in the next SLC meeting. The SLC meeting recorded that the cases of the other candidates could not be considered for want of vacancies reserved for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner fell within this category. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 4. The affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Secretary, Industries, Commerce and Public Enterprises Department, has sought to explain that as per the report received from the office of the Commissioner, Industries and Commerce, there was no vacancy for compassionate appointment. The cadre strength of Grade-IV in the office of the Executive Engineer, Guwahati, is 11, 5 % of which was approximated to one. The cadre strength of Grade-IV in the office of the Executive Engineer, Guwahati, is 11, 5 % of which was approximated to one. The said sole post had already been filled up on 12.03.2010, by appointing another person on compassionate ground. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the materials placed on record. The father of the petitioner expired in 2014, when the petitioner was aged about 30 years. The age of the brothers and sisters have not been disclosed. Assuming the application for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground had been preferred within a year, the first meeting which considered the case of the petitioner was conducted in the year 2017 and the final consideration came in the year 2020. The petitioner has approached this Court in the December 2021, after the application had been rejected in January, 2020. 6. In the case of State of West Bengal -Vs- Debabrata Tiwari and Others ; reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712 , it has been held that since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to financial condition and hardship faced by dependants of deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since death of government employee. In the present case, the death of the employee had occurred 7 years ago. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by this Court WA 348/2017 on 22.02.2018, wherein this Court had observed as follows:- “ At first blush, this case, touching on the issue of appointment on compassionate ground, appears to be misconceived and without merit, having regard to the scheme of compassionate appointment. A closer look reveals otherwise and conveys a message of serious concern and sparks an apprehension whether the State respondents are sincere in their effort to implement the scheme ensuring that persons who are deserving of such appointments are not hopelessly abandoned. It is also a matter of concern whether the process of compassionate appointments is misused to suit the interest of vested circles. It is also a matter of concern whether the process of compassionate appointments is misused to suit the interest of vested circles. The facts in the instant case gives an impression that the State respondents are not too serious about it and are going about in a slipshod manner, allowing applications to gather dust for years and then summarily reject it as having spent its force. If that be so, it cannot be permitted and those responsible must be made accountable. There can be no unfettered discretion immune from judicial review on the part of the State respondents in picking and choosing persons for making compassionate appointment. It must always be uppermost in mind that time is always of essence for making compassionate appointment because the very object of such appointments are to save the family from immediate distress, which normally visits the family with the loss of the bread earner. Penury and destitution are the yardsticks on which compassionate appointment is required to be made within the earliest possible time, as delay in making such appointment would not only be fatal but defeat the very purpose of the scheme of compassionate appointment. This state of affairs would require attention and deliberation of the highest Executive functionaries in the State. **** **** **** **** 5. Application made by the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground well within time on 07.10.2009 was brought to an end only on 11.08.2017. The inordinate delay in the disposal of the application certainly cannot be attributed to the appellant. Further, non- application of mind is also demonstrated by the State Level Committee in rejecting his case due to want of vacancy when an exercise had already been conducted by the District Level Committee certifying the suitability of the appellant and existence of vacancies in the post of Forest Guards under the establishment of the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Silchar. Rejection of an application without due application of mind and as a matter of course and by employing the expressions “want of vacancy” and “spent its force”, are easy methods to deprive a candidate from his legitimate entitlement. Such course of action would only go to frustrate and defeat the very object governing compassionate appointments. Rejection of an application without due application of mind and as a matter of course and by employing the expressions “want of vacancy” and “spent its force”, are easy methods to deprive a candidate from his legitimate entitlement. Such course of action would only go to frustrate and defeat the very object governing compassionate appointments. These shortcomings finds best illustration in the present case where the candidature of the appellant was rejected for want of vacancy despite favourable recommendation being made by the District Level Committee having regard to existence of vacancies and on ground of elapse of time, for which the appellant cannot be found fault at. 6. On the facts above, we are of the considered view that the case of the appellant for appointment on compassionate grounds was not handled judiciously and by going into the merits of his case. Rejection merely on technical grounds and on ground of want of vacancy does not find support from available records. It also does not inspire the confidence of this Court. 8. In the present case, the facts differ since the lack of vacancy has not only been explained in the affidavit as the same has been supported by the records attached thereto. 9. In view of the above findings, this Court is unable to grant the prayer of the writ petitioner for a referral back to the SLC since the want of vacancies has been demonstrated. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. No cost(s).