ASHOK BHAN, J. ( 1 ) ONE late Ramaiah was the employee of the Karnataka Power transmission Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant' ). He died while in service on 9-10-1972. Writ petitioner-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') was two years of age at the time of the death of his father. Within two years of attaining the age of majority the respondent made an application to the appellant for an appointment on compassionate grounds which was denied on the ground that there were no Rules in the Corporation at the relevant time for providing employment on compassionate grounds. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT filed the Writ Petition in the year 2000 seeking awrit of mandamus directing the appellant to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of discrimination alleging therein that the appellant had given appointment to certain similarly situated persons, where as the same benefit has been denied to him. ( 3 ) LEARNED Single Judge agreed that there was no Rules in existence for providing appointment on compassionate ground in the year 1972 when the father of the respondent had died. Simply on the ground that appellant had given appointment to certain persons who were similarly situated, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that there was no reason to deny the same benefit to the respondent as well. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed and the appellant was directed to consider the application of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds as expeditiously as possible but not later than 6 months from the date of passing of the order. Appellant being aggrieved has come up in appeal. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the appellant has vehemently argued that in the absence of Rules for providing appointment on compassionate grounds the learned Single Judge could not have directed the appellant to give appointment on compassionate grounds to the respondent. We agree with this contention. In the absence of any rules for providing appointment on compassionate grounds at the time when the father of the respondent died, the learned Single judge could not have directed the appellant to give appointment to the respondent after a delay of 28 years. There cannot be a negative equality under Article 14 and 16. We agree with this contention. In the absence of any rules for providing appointment on compassionate grounds at the time when the father of the respondent died, the learned Single judge could not have directed the appellant to give appointment to the respondent after a delay of 28 years. There cannot be a negative equality under Article 14 and 16. As there were no rules providing for appointment on compassionate grounds, no right had come to vest on the appellate to claim appointment on compassionate grounds. Mandamus can be issued to the authorities to enforce a right or to act in accordance with law. There cannot be any negative equality in the matter of giving appointment to a person in whom no right had come to vest for appointment on compassionate grounds only on the ground at earlier by mistake or wrong appointment was given to certain persons. That would be perpetuating a wrong. ( 5 ) THE appeal is accepted. Order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. Writ Petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. --- *** --- .