- (1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Appellant Dhruv Prasad has filed this Special Appeal against the im pugned judgment dated 10-08-2004 passed by the learned Singh Judge in Writ Petition No. 4506 (S/s) of 2001 whereby appellant's writ petition was dismissed.
(2.) THE Petitioner filed the writ for the following reliefs : "a. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned Circular dated 23-02-2001 issued by the Respondent no. 4. B. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus re straining the Respondents from terminating the services of the Pe titioner pursuant to the Circular dated 23-02-2001. C. To, issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus com manding the Respondents tp con sider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassion ate grounds and to give him regular appointment in some suitable post. D. To, issue any other suitable writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem proper arid fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. E. To award the cost of the writ pe tition in favour of the petitioner. " The petitioner, in substance, was seeking a direction to the respondents to give him regular appointment on com passionate grounds oh account of the death of his father, who was an em ployee of the respondent University. The petitioner also sought quashing of the Circular dated 23-02-2001. The respondent University in their counter affidavit submitted that the pe titioner's father was inducted as a daily wager and continued to remain as such till his death on 16. 02. 1998. It was pleaded that as the petitioner's father was not a regular employee of the Uni versity, the petitioner was not entitled to a regular appointment on compassion ate grounds.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge on a thorough examination of the rival sub missions of the learned counsel for the parties did not find any case in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, dis missed the writ petition vide impugned judgment dated 10-8-2004. We have heard Sri Manoj Tiwari, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajendra Dobhal, the learned counsel for the respondents.;