JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. Vishwa Nath Rai, father of the petitioner, was Headmaster in Panchayat Junior High School, Mithaura Bazar, District Maharajganj, which was a recognised Government aided Junior High School. He died-in-harness on 20.4.1990. The petitioner applied under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 for appointment as an Assistant Clerk or Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground claiming that he was duly qualified for being so appointed. Several reminders were sent to the respondents and since no orders were passed by the respondents, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner.
2. I have heard Sri Vashistha Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-School and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even though the father of the petitioner may not have been a Government Servant as he was only a Headmaster in a Junior High School, still the petitioner would be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground in the institution of respondent No. 2 under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 as though the said Rules may not directly apply in the case of the petitioner but the principles laid down in the said Rules would be applicable as the institution of respondent No. 2 is a Government aided institution. He has relied on a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Balbir Kaur and Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors., (2000) 3 UPLBEC 2055, wherein it has been held that the concept of social justice is the yardstick to the justice administration system or the legal justice and the greatest virtue of law is in its adaptability and flexibility and thus, it would be otherwise an obligation for the law Courts also to apply the law depending upon the institution since the law is made for the society and whichever is beneficial for the society, the endeavour of the law Court would be to administer justice having due regard in the direction.
4. In the present case, it is the specific case of the respondents that there is no Government Order which is applicable to the recognized Junior High School regarding the appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules and as such the application moved by the petitioner was not maintainable. Even, the petitioner does not claim that his father was a Government Servant on whom the Rules of 1974 would be directly applicable.
5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my view, even though the institution may be a Government aided School but there being no provision of law providing for appointment on compassionate grounds, this Court cannot make certain provisions of law or Rules applicable to the petitioner which are meant for some other class of persons. The petitioner has not been able to place before me any Rules or any Government Order by which the petitioner would be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 apply only to the Government Servants and as laid down by the Apex Court in Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors., (1998) 2 UPLBEC 1310, the said Rules which apply to the dependents of Government Servants, would not apply for appointment on compassionate ground to the dependents of employees of the Government recognized aided Schools who die-in-harness.
6. A writ of mandamus can be issued for enforcement of a legal right. In the absence of the petitioner having been able to point out any provision of law under which he may be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground, no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner. No right can be created in favour of the petitioner to which he is not entitled to under law.
7. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed but without there being any order as to costs.