Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 to appoint the petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules as per his qualification.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that father of petitioner namely, Ashiq Ali, while he was posted as Assistant Teacher, Basic School, Bhagwatganj, Block Mandhata, district Pratapgarh died on 19.10.1996 during the period of his service, leaving behind his widow Noorjahan Begum, unmarried daughter Shabnam Bano and four sons namely, Mohd. Saif, Mohd. Kaish, Mohd. Jaid and Mohd. Junaid. Just after death of her husband, petitioner’s mother Noorjahan Begum who was 40 years old, moved an application on 12.5.1997 for her appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. When no action was taken on her application for appointment, she moved several applications thereafter on 10.3.1998, 10.7.1999, 10.1.2001, 8.5.2002 and on 8.4.2004 before the respondent No. 3 and other concerned authorities but no action was taken by the authorities concerned. The petitioner passed High School in the year 2004, Intermediate in the year 2006 and B. A. in the year 2009 from Faizabad University in the Second Division. The petitioner on becoming major in the year 2006 moved an application before the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 5.5.2007 seeking appointment under Dying in Harness Rules as per his qualification. When no action was taken by the authorities concerned, the petitioner moved another application on 10.6.2009 before *the authorities concerned for redressal of his grievance but no action was taken by the opposite parties. Since the dependents of the deceased are still facing financial hardship, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a legal right to get employment under Dying in Harness Rules and action of the opposite parties in not considering petitioner’s application for giving an appointment under Dying in Harness Rules is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. The surviving family members of the deceased are facing great financial crisis and the opposite parties are under obligation to make appointment of petitioner on suitable post under the provisions of Dying in Harness Rules.

5. Learned Standing Counsel while opposing writ petition, submitted that the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father and, therefore, his application for employment was rightly not considered. Secondly, an appointment under Dying in Harness Rules cannot be claimed as a matter of right because object of making an appointment on compassionate ground is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and apparently, in the present case, the petitioner was a minor and on attaining the age of majority in the year 2006 he has claimed appointment under Dying in Harness Rules as a matter of right. Present writ petition is, therefore, misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have considered arguments of learned counsel for respective parties and gone through the record.

7. Admittedly, in the present case, father of the petitioner died in the year 1996 and at that time petitioner was minor and was not eligible for giving appointment under Dying in Harness Rules. Since the petitioner was not eligible being minor, he approached the authorities for appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 after attaining the age of majority in the year 2007.

8. The whole object of giving a compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and financial difficulties which was faced by the family of the deceased due to death of earning member of the family. The benefit of Rules, 1974 is given to the dependent of the deceased Government servant so that the family could over-come such financial constraints.

9. The reason for