UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, Govt. of Assam. Also heard Ms. R. B. Bora, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner seeks quashing of the decision of the State Level Committee dated 26.08.2014 as well as subsequent decision of the District Level Committee, Morigaon dated 28.09.2015 rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and further seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground in any post commensurate to his qualification.

3. Case of the petitioner is that his father Bhuban Chandra Nath was the Head Master of Boralimari High School in the district of Morigaon. He died in-harness on 29.03.2007.

4. Petitioner is a graduate having obtained Major in Political Science. Following the death of his father, he submitted application dated 08.06.2008 before the Inspector of Schools, Morigaon seeking appointment on compassionate ground in the post of Assistant teacher in the Boralimari High School. Case of the petitioner was placed before the District Level Committee (DLC), Morigaon on 23.04.2012. DLC recommended appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground against the vacant post of Assistant Teacher. Thereafter, matter was forwarded to be placed before the State Level Committee. Accordingly, State Level Committee in its meeting held on 26.08.2014 took up the case of the petitioner for consideration. However, case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of lack of required minimum percentage of marks at the degree level.

5. It appears that following such rejection, petitioner again made a request to the concerned authorities to reconsider his case for compassionate appointment against any available vacancy commensurate with his educational qualification. This time, DLC in its meeting held on 28.09.2015 rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground of late submission of application.

6. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed.

7. Notice was issued on 12.08.2016. However, no affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

8. Having regard to the nature of the grievance expressed and the decisions of the SLC and DLC being quite clear, it would serve no useful purpose to keep the matter pending before the Court any further. Accordingly, case is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

9. From the narration of facts, it is quite clear that initially case of the petitioner was recommended by the DLC but SLC rejected the same on account of not having the minimum required percentage of marks at the graduate level. Second time, DLC rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground of late submission of application.

10. Both the above grounds may be taken up for consideration.

11. Firstly, petitioner's father died-in-harness on 29.03.2007 where after he submitted application seeking compassionate appointment on 08.06.2008. It is submitted that as per the scheme prepared by the Government on 02.03.2009, such applications were required to be submitted within 3 months of the date of death of the Government servant. Following the decision of this Court in Faziron Nessa & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340, applications for compassionate appointment are required to be submitted within a period of 12 months from the date of death of the Government servant.

12. Question for consideration is whether the said period is to be treated like a period of limitation, being an inflexible rule having no scope for relaxation?

13. Compassionate appointment by its very nature is based on compassion. It is an exception to the general rules of recruitment. The period specified for submission of application is only in the form of a guideline to ensure orderliness in considering claims to compassionate appointment and also to eliminate