M. KATJU, R. B. MISRA, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated July 19, 2001 Annexure-9 to the writ petition and letter dated June 19, 2001 annexure-10 to the writ petition. ( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners father was working as senior Manager in U. P. Sahkari Gram Vikas bank died in harness on 9/08/1998. The petitioner is a law graduate and he applied for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules vide application dated 9/09/1998 Annexure-1 to the writ petition. By order dated 4/02/1999 the Registrar wrote to the Managing director that the petitioner does not posses the requisite qualification for appointment, vide annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter the petitioner met the Administrator of the Bank and applied for appointment to some post lower than senior Manager. He also applied for the appointment as Manager (Law) on compassionate ground to the Administrator. The administrator then wrote to the Managing director to issue appointment letter of the post of manager (Law) vide Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Consequently the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner as Manager (Law) vide annexure 4 to the writ petition. A perusal of this letter shows that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc capacity and subject to the approval of the u. P. Co-operative Industrial Service Board. This letter was amended on 22/03/1999 vide annexure 5 to the writ petition. The petitioner joined as Manager (Law) at Banda vide annexure-6 to the writ petition and he has been working on that post and was granted increment vide Armexure-7 to the writ petition. However, by orders dated July 19, 2001 and June 19, 2001 aimexures 9 and 10 to the writ petition the petitioner was reverted to the post of Accountant. It is alleged that this was done without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Aggrieved this writ petition has been filed. ( 3 ) A counter affidavit has been filed in which it was stated in paragraph 5 that the appointment of persons dying in harness can only. be considered for Group-c and d posts which are outside the purview of Public Service commission videg. O. dated 30/11/1989 annexure C. A.-l to the counter affidavit. ( 3 ) A counter affidavit has been filed in which it was stated in paragraph 5 that the appointment of persons dying in harness can only. be considered for Group-c and d posts which are outside the purview of Public Service commission videg. O. dated 30/11/1989 annexure C. A.-l to the counter affidavit. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioners appointment was only temporary and ad hoc and subject to the approval of the Service Institutional Board and the Board did not approve the petitioners appointment even on ad hoc basis as Manager (Law ). True copy of the letter dated 11/07/2001 of the Board in this connection is Annexure C. A. 3 to the counter affidavit. In paragraph 9 it is stated that the petitioner was neither eligible nor qualified for the post of Manager (Law) which is group b post. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner has been appointed as assistant Accountant in accordance with the relevant Rules. ( 4 ) IN our opinion, the petitioner has no right 25 to be appointed as Manager (Law) under Dying in Harness Rules. The service conditions of the respondent Bank are governed by the U. P. Co-operative Societies Service Regulations, 1975 according to which no appointment can be 30made in the bank without approval of U. P. Co-operative Institutional Board. Since the Board did not give approval to the petitioner appointment, obviously the petitioner had no right to get that appointment. The ad hoc 35 appointment of the petitioner as Manager (Law)does not give him any right to the post. Moreover as held by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Samsuzzotia, AIR 1996 SC 1961 : 1996 (4) SCC 546 : 1996-II-LLJ-647 an applicant for 40 compassionate appointment does not have any right to claim a particular appointment. In our opinion, the post of Manager (Law) falls in class-H category, hence the petitioner has no right for appointment to that post under Dying in Harness Rules. ( 5 ) THE petition is dismissed. .