ORDER
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order issued by the respondents appointing one Subhas Mondal. The petitioner's father died on February 23, 1973. Prior to the nationalisation of coalmines, it can safely be presumed that his father had been working in the colliery which was under the private ownership. Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, although received the assent of the President of India on May 31, 1973, it was given a retrospective effect and retroactive operation with effect from May 1, 1973. It is, therefore, evident that prior to the nationalisation of the said colliery, the petitioner's father died. Learned counsel for the petitioner, when questioned, did not dispute that there existed no policy decision to appoint a dependent of a deceased employee in the colliery in question which was these under private management. A purported policy decision was made for the first time by issuing a circular letter dated June 30, 1989, wherein it was stated :
'Under the death quota only son, if not brother of the deceased employee during the period from January 31, 1978 to December 31, 1978 as per the last of capital employment grade in the notice board will apply for recruitment.'
2. On the basis of the said purported circular, which ex facie is not applicable in the case of the petitioner he filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before me a purported report of the Advisory Committee wherein the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was recommended in preference to Subhas Mondal on the ground that the petitioner's father died on February 23, 1973, whereas the father of the said Subhas Mondal died on January 28, 1976.
4. Learned counsel submits that a letter of appointment sought to be issued in favour of Subhas Mondal thus must be held to be wholly illegal and the petitioner is entitled to obtain a Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to give appointment on compassionate ground.
5. Eastern Coalfields Limited, which incidentally has not been impleaded as a party in this writ applications is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. A writ petition against it would be maintainable only if the petitioner can demonstrate violation of any of his fundamental rights as engrafted in Part III of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has clearly held that a right of appointment on compassionate ground is not an absolute right. Such appointments on compassionate grounds can only be made if the conditions precedent therefor are fulfilled. Such appointments are also required to be made in strict compliance of the rules prescribed therefor. The Apex Court in no uncertain terms has also held that appointment on compassionate ground is given as to ameliorate the difficulties felt by the family of the deceased. Such an appointment is given to give some reliefs to the family in distress. Thus, such an appointment should be sought for and granted within a reasonable time from the date of death of the concerned employee. It is also now a trite law that a right to obtain appointment on compassionate ground must exist in a person at the time of death of the employee whose dependant he or she was. In the case of Life Insurance Corpn. of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar reported in (1994-II-LLJ-173) (SC) it has categorically been held that an appointment on compassionate ground must be in consonance with the rules. Similar view has been expressed recently by the Apex Court in the case of the State of Rajasthan v. Chandra Narayan Verma reported in : (1994)2SCC752 . In the case of Ajit Saran v. State of Bihar reported in 1994 (2) BLJR 972, Patna High Court has held that an appointment on compassionate ground can be refused if there is an earning member in the family. In the case of Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 414, a Division Bench of Patna High Court, of which I was a party had emphasized the necessity of filing an application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground within a reasonable time. The said decision has been followed and the same view was again reiterated by a Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Prem Narayan v. State of Bihar reported in 1995 Bihar Bar Council Journal 124. As the matter stands concluded by the decision of various High Courts as also the Apex Court, in my opinion, it is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner should be directed to be appointed although more than 22 years have elapsed from the date of death of his father. The family of the petitioner cannot be said to be any longer in distress owing to his father's death. The purport and object to obtain an appointment on compassionate ground thus no longer exists.
6. Moreover, as noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner had no right to obtain an employment on compassionate ground when his father died. Eastern Coalfields Limited had merely issued a circular letter in the year 1989, that is 16 years after the date of death of the petitioner's father. Faced up with this situation, Ms. Mukharji submits that a direction should be given to give appointment to the petitioner keeping in view the fact that the respondents are going to appoint Subhas Mondal. It is now well known that Article 14 of the Constitution envisages equality before law and equal protection of law. If an illegality has been committed such illegality cannot be directed to be perpetrated by the Court. In such a matter. Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken recourse to. For the purpose of obtaining a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus, the petitioner must establish existence of a legal right in himself. Even assuming that a concession has been shown by the respondents in favour of Sri Mondal, the petitioner did not derive any right pursuant thereto. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision in the case of K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty v. State of Mysore reported in (1967-II-LLJ-434) (S.C). Ms. Mukharji submits that the appointment of Sri Mondal should be directed to be cancelled. This Court cannot pass such an order, as Sri Mondal has not been impleaded as a party in this writ application. As indicated hereinbefore, even Eastern Coalfields Limited which is a juristic person and whose employee Sri Mondal now is, has also not been impleaded as a party in this writ application.
7. For the reasons aforementioned in my opinion, this application being wholly devoid of any merit, cannot be entertained and the same is accordingly dismissed.