ORDER 1. The petitioner is one of the sons of a certain Ajit Narayan from one of his two wives. The aforesaid Ajit Narayan was employed as a Peon in the department of Maithili. Langat Singh College. Muzaffarpur under the Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. He died on 28.1.1996 while in service. He left behind two wives Sona Devi and Shila Devi. From Shila Devi he had one son Gupteshwar Dubey (Respondent no. 5). From Sona Devi he had several children including the petitioner. 2. The University under the scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds gave employment to Gupteshwar Dubey. 3. This writ petition was filed seeking a direction for the removal of Respondent no. 5 and the appointment of the petitioner in his place. However, in course of the argument Mr. Tara Kant Jha made a limited prayer and sought a direction to the University to ensure that respondent No.5, having been appointed on compassionate grounds following the death of his father duly maintained the other branch of the family of the deceased Ajit Narayan. It was alleged on behalf of the petitioner that respondent no. 5 was not giving any help to maintain Sona Devi and her children. Mr. Jha contended that the whole object and purpose of the scheme was to mitigate the hardship faced by the family members on account of the demise of the family bread winner. As the University had employed Respondent no. 5 under this scheme it was further obliged to ensure that either respondent no. 5 helped in the maintenance of the other wife and children of the deceased employee or to remove him from service and to give employment to some one also who would fulfil the object of the scheme. 4. I find the submission quite unacceptable. In the first place the submission is based on the allegation that Respondent no. 5 was not extending any help in the maintenance of the other branch of the family. This quite evidently is a pure question of fact and even without issuing any notice to Respondent no. 5 it can be safely presumed that he would deny such an allegation. It will thus become a disputed question of fact which can hardly be investigated by a writ court. 5. This quite evidently is a pure question of fact and even without issuing any notice to Respondent no. 5 it can be safely presumed that he would deny such an allegation. It will thus become a disputed question of fact which can hardly be investigated by a writ court. 5. Secondly, even assuming the position to be such as stated by the petitioner no direction can be issued to the University as prayed for on behalf of the petitioner. 6. All schemes and policies are based on certain general and broad premises. The scheme of compassionate appointment is founded on the premise that providing a job to one of the family members (of specified categories) of the deceased employee would go a long way in mitigating the hardship which the family of the demised bread winner would have otherwise faced. The premise on which the scheme is founded is quite reasonable and have been held to be so by decisions of this court. If in one or two isolated cases this premise does not hold good because the person appointed on compassionate grounds does not help in maintaining the family, that would not make the scheme liable to be scrapped; nor for that reason can the scheme be extended to saddle the employer with the further responsibility to monitor the day to day affairs of the family of the deceased employee. Casting such responsibility on the employer would be wholly unfair and unreasonable. From another point of view putting the employer in such a position would amount to placing him in the position of the guardian of the employee, a position strongly deprecated by the Supreme Court in M/s Glaxo Laboratories (I) Limited vs. Presiding Officer, Meerut, AIR 1984 SC 505 : "The employer has hardly any extra-territorial jurisdiction. He is not the custodian of general law and order situation nor the Guru or mentor of his workmen for their well regulated cultural advancement. If the power to regulate the behaviour of the workmen outside the duty hours and at• any place wherever they may be was conferred upon the employer, contract of service may be reduced to the contract of slavery." 7. For the reasons discussed above, I find no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.