This writ application has been filed by one. per son claiming to be the President of Gauhati Refinery High School Siksyak Katmachari Santha. It is stated that this is a society registered under Societies Registration Act and the Secretary of the said society is duly authorised to file this writ application, but though the Secretary is authorised, this writ application has been filed by the President. 2. Be that as it mavj the brief facts of the case are as follows. 3. The Gauhati Refinery in order to impart education to the children of its employees started a school in the Refinery campus. The school was not run by the administration of the Refinery but it was managed by the different concerns from time to time. Ultimately, there was an agreement between the State of Assam and the Refinery Authority by which the school was taken over by the Govt. i.e. Annexure F, to the writ application. That is quoted below: xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 4. That in pursuance to this agreement, on 18th April, 1991 the Government provincialised the services of teaching and non teaching staff of the Gauhati Refinery with effect from 1.4.91 i.e. Annexure G1 to the writ application. That is quoted below : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 5. Thereafter some more posts were provincialised vide Annexure J to the, writ application. This writ application is now being filed with the following prayers : That the orders dated 18.4.92 to be quashed as violative of the provisions of Assam Secondary Education (Proyincialisation) Act, 1977 and for issue of a Mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take the petitioner i.e. teaching and non-teaching staff of the school as its regular employees without service break, after de-provincialising their services. 6. Order dated 18.4.81 is Annexure G1 to the writ application and order dated 13.7.92 is Annexure J to the writ application. In Annexitfe J, there is a clause 4 which states as follows : "4. Special Allowances and other facilities which are not covered by Govt rule and which are enjoying by the employees from the Refinery will have to be borne by me Refinery authority directly." 7. The grievance of the petitioners are inter alia as follows: (i) As some more schools have been deprovincialised this school also should be deprovincialised and necessary direction may be given to the Refinery authority to take over the school. The grievance of the petitioners are inter alia as follows: (i) As some more schools have been deprovincialised this school also should be deprovincialised and necessary direction may be given to the Refinery authority to take over the school. (ii) As the management did not fulfil its promises, it should fulfil its promises as regards to granting facilities. (iii) The three basic facilities namely, residential quarter, medical treatment 9 and transportation provided to the teachers are far from being satisfactory. (iv) No school cap be provincialised by entering into an agreement. (v) The petitioners are deprived of the facilities given to other employees of the Refinery under the veil of provincialisatidn order. 8. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 wherein in paragraph 4, it has been stated as follows: xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 9. So, it is crystal clear that at no point of time the teachers or the non-teaching staffs of the school were the employees of the Refinery and they were only employees of different authorities at different point of time. It is also denied in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioners are entitled to the facilities granted to the employees of the Refinery. It is stated that these teachers are getting better facilities than the teachers of other provincialised schools. It is further stated that a Court cannot issue a Mandamus directing the teachers and non-teaching staffs of the school to be made the employees of the Refinery. The Court has no such power and jurisdiction. It is further stated that the Refinery has got nothing to do regarding the provincialisation of the school and if the school is de-privincialised, the petitioners only will suffer. It is submitted that this application may be rejected. With the affidavit-in-opposition, the following documents are annexed : (i) Memorandum of settlement arrived at between the Management and IOC Limited, Refineries Division and the employees represented by the Refinery Workers Union in course of conciliation proceeding held on the 2nd March, 1978. (ii) Agreement between Assam Educational Trust and the Refinery regarding running the Gauhati Refinery High School. (iii) Letter dated 25.8,89 by which Assam Educational Trust terminated the earlier agreement. (iv) Letter dated 2.9.89 regarding closer of the school issued by the Assam Educational Trust. (ii) Agreement between Assam Educational Trust and the Refinery regarding running the Gauhati Refinery High School. (iii) Letter dated 25.8,89 by which Assam Educational Trust terminated the earlier agreement. (iv) Letter dated 2.9.89 regarding closer of the school issued by the Assam Educational Trust. (v) One document regarding minutes of discussion and other documents regarding constitution of Management Committee and this is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition. (vi) Gazette notification dated 18th of April, 1991 by Which the provincialisation of the services of the teachers and other employees of the school were notified in the Gazette. 10. I have heard Shri PK Goswami, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri DN Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 the learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri Goswami, argued that corporate philosophy of the present day requires that appropriate care should be taken for the benefits of its employees and this school was established for the benefit of its employees and in that view of the matter, it is accepted that the corporate philosophy and ideals should be given necessary attention to the welfare and betterment of the teachers of the school as they are engaged for the betterment of the right of its employees and in that view of the matter he submits that it is the necessity of the day that the Refinery should take over the school and do the needful to the teachers and the non-teaching staff of the school. This submission may be correct regarding the principle of welfare to be adopted by a corporate body, but the question is how far this Court is competent to issue the Mandamus as prayed for. On hearing the learned counsel of both the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I do not find that this Court is competent to issue the Mandamus as prayed for. 11. A Mandamus will lie to a person on whom a duty is imposed by the statute only the Commission to do a particular act if that person refrains from doing the act or refrain from wrong motive from exercising the power which it has the duty to exercise, the Court will by order of Mandamus direct him to do what he should do. The person to whom the Mandamus is issued must have some public duty to perform. The person to whom the Mandamus is issued must have some public duty to perform. In the instant case, I do not find that there is any duty imposed by the statute on the Refinery authority to do public duty. I do not find that common law should dictate or enjoin the Refinery authority to do that particular thing. 12. In order to entitle a party to Mandamus the applicant must show that his legal right to the performance of the legal duty by the party against whom the Mandamus is ought is infringed or violated. The duty must be by the Constitution, by a statute, by common law or by rules or orders having the force of law. That is what is lacking in the instant case. 13. Another aspect of the matter which must be looked into is that relief by way of Mandamus is discretionary and not as of right. Mandamus will not be issued when it appears that it would be futile in its result. In order to get Mandamus as indicated above, there must be a legal right on the petitioners. Without it no Mandamus can be issued. That legal right is absolutely absent in favour of the petitioner in this particular case. A Mandamus cannot be issued enforce certain concessions or agreement made which do not give any legal right in favour of the parties. Whatsoever the pitiable condition may be of a party, the Court cannot issue the Mandamus to mitigate the hardship and injury of a party if it is not within the bounds of law or if it does not involve infringement of any legal right. The legal right to compel the performance of public duty must reside in the applicant itself either solely or in common with others. It will not be sufficient to show merely that the applicant has an interest in the performance of duty. The petitioners must show that he himself has a legal right to insist of such performance. 14. Justice is not a cloistered virtue, but a vital social service to be adopted/used for the welfare of the people. By quashing the orders instead of doing benefit of the petitioners, the Court will create confusion and chaos and throw them to the wind, to hang there without support. 14. Justice is not a cloistered virtue, but a vital social service to be adopted/used for the welfare of the people. By quashing the orders instead of doing benefit of the petitioners, the Court will create confusion and chaos and throw them to the wind, to hang there without support. This will not be justice but sheer injustice and will upset the status of things which have taken a managable shape. By exercising the equitable writ jurisdiction a Court should not create a topsy turvy situation. No doubt as pointed out by Roscoe Pound in his Jurisprudence, the end of law is towards seeking to satisfy the maximum of the whole scheme of human desires/wants etc so far as it may be done through legal order without too much sacrifice to the general set up of the society. Towards that the Judge can play a positive role, but in making such an attempt the Judge cannot behave like Bull in a Chinaclay shop, his attempt must be a catious one. He must-behave like an ideal creator. 15. In that view of the matter, the question of issuing the Mandamus to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 to take back the petitioner i.e. teaching and non-teaching staff of the Refinery High School employees does not arise. At no point of time, these teaching and non-teaching staff of the school were employees of the Refinery and the question of taking back does not arise. 16. The next question which comes is whether this Court should quash the orders dated 18.4.92 and 13.7.92 Annexure G1 and J being violative of the provisions of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1977 ? The only argument which is advanced by Shri Goswami with regard to this is that this Act was made to provincialise the Secondary Education covered by the deficit scheme of the Govt. of Assam and the Act was made for the improvement and for better control and management of such education in the State of Assam. Shri Goswami, learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that at no point of time, this school was a deficit school. 17. I do not consider this aspect of the matter in this writ application inasmuch as justice of the case does not demand that these two notifications require to be quashed inasmuch as by quashing these notifications, I shall throw these petitioner to the wolf. 17. I do not consider this aspect of the matter in this writ application inasmuch as justice of the case does not demand that these two notifications require to be quashed inasmuch as by quashing these notifications, I shall throw these petitioner to the wolf. That cannot be the approach and purpose of writ jurisdiction. Public interest demands that I should not touch these two notifications. 18. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Before I part with the record I am quoting the order dated 6.7.95 passed by this Court as follows : "Heard Mr. PK Goswami, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. DN Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 5. Hearing is concluded. Judgment reserved. During the course of hearing, it appears that mere are some matter which can be sorted out by the Gauhati Refinery and have requested to Mr. PC Deka, learned Advocate for the Refinery to instruct his client to do the needful if possible to sort out the matter. Mr. Deka assures me that he will instruct his client accordingly. There are certain demands vide Annexure E to the writ application dated 30.3.90. The authority shall consider their demands and try to sort out the same, if possible." 19. I direct that the Refinery Authority shall sympathetically consider that aspect of the matter. I hope and trust that the Refinery Authority shall show their magnanimity as a corporate -authority to give benefit to the petitioners, if possible, 20. This disposes of the matter.