JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. Laknyei Phom, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. M. Longkumer, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Respondents. 2. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the non- consideration of his application for being appointed on compassionate basis in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015. 3. The facts of the instant case would show that the Petitioner’s father Late ABC Yinglao Phom was working as a constable in the establishment of the Superintendent of Police, Longleng, Nagaland. Unfortunately, the father of the Petitioner expired on 16.11.2022 leaving behind the Petitioner, Petitioner’s mother and three school going children. The Petitioner thereupon submitted an application on 16.06.2025 seeking appointment on compassionate/ humanitarian ground in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015. On account of non-consideration of his application, the Petitioner has approached this Court. 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents has produced before this Court a list of compassionate appointment application as per the date of death (received post P&AR Office Memorandum Addendum dated 09.04.2019). It is mentioned that the Petitioner’s application at present is at Serial No.249 and the Petitioner would be considered as and when his turn comes. The said list prepared of application filed for compassionate appointment as per the date of death is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. 5. This Court duly takes note of Clause 5 of the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015 as well as the Addendum dated 09.04.2019 which stipulates that the compassionate appointment made to Group-C and Group-D posts under the Scheme dated 17.09.2015 shall be strictly in order of date of death and first preference shall always be given against those who have died earlier and who fulfills all other eligible criteria. 6. It is the opinion of this Court that as the appointment on compassionate ground is a Scheme of the Government by which the State wishes to provide succor on account of the death of the sole bread earner of the family and it being an exception to Article 16 of the Constitution, the Petitioner’s entitlement would have to be strictly in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015 read with the Addendum dated 09.04.2019. 7. 7. Considering the above, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition thereby directing the Respondents 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 as and when the turn of the Petitioner arises.