appointment was made by the petitioner within the prescribed time and the same was also duly forwarded by the concerned authorities. The learned counsel has also referred to a letter dated 09.07.2002 issued by the Department to the Inspector of School, Nalbari to furnish a detail report on compassionate appointment within the 5% reservation. The petitioner also claims to have submitted an application on 14.03.2012 to the Hon’ble Minister of the Department whereafter, on 26.12.2012, the Department had requested the Inspector of Schools to take action as per the guidelines. A similar request was made on 16.03.2023 by the Principal Private Secretary of the Hon’ble Chief Minister to the Education Department.

5. Per contra, Ms. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department has submitted that the pleadings are vague which shows complete lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioner as no details of any proceeding of the District Level Committee (DLC) or State Level Committee (SLC) have been referred to. She has also highlighted the aspect of delay in approaching the Court and also the aspect of the claim for any such direction in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219.

6. The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.

7. On perusal of the writ petition, this Court finds sufficient force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition lacks in disclosure of the relevant facts, namely, as to when the matter of the petitioner was taken up for consideration by the DLC and thereafter, by the SLC, if at all the same was taken up. Certain vague statements have been made regarding forwarding of the application by the Principal Private Secretary to the Hon’ble Chief Minster, Assam. This Court has also noticed that in paragraph 7 a claim for compassionate appointment for the elder son of the petitioner has also been raised.

8. There is another aspect of the matter which is very important in the adjudication of the present claim. As per the projected case, the death of the husband of the petitioner was on 21.12.2001 and the writ petition has been instituted in the year 2025 i.e. after almost 25 years. The said aspect is intrinsically connected with the very objective of the scheme for compassionate appointment. The very objective of the scheme, which is an exception to the general mode of recruitment, is to give immediate succor to a family which has lost its sole breadwinner who was a Government servant and such objective would not survive after a gap of about 25 years. 9. The law on compassionate appointment has been elaborately explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra). In the said case, almost all the earlier cases on the subject of compassionate appointment have been discussed and the principles have been laid down. It has been reiterated that an appointment on compassionate ground is a departure from the normal rule and is an exception which is meant only to enable the bereaved family to tie over the sudden financial crisis on the death of a government servant while in service. It has also been clarified that it is not a vested right and the aspect of delay would be of paramount consideration. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow-

“7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge:

(i) 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