Judgment Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant Dhruv Prasad has filed this Special Appeal against the impugned judgment dated 10-08-2004 passed by the learned Singh Judge in Writ Petition No. 4506 (S/S) of 2001 whereby appellant's writ petition was dismissed. 2. The Petitioner filed the writ for the following reliefs: "A. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned Circular dated 23-02-2001 issued by the Respondent no. 4. B. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the Respondents from terminating the services of the Petitioner pursuant to the Circular dated 23-02-2001. C. To, issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and to give him regular appointment in some suitable post. D. To, issue any other suitable writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem proper and fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. E. To award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner." 3. The petitioner, in substance, was seeking a direction to the respondents to give him regular appointment on compassionate grounds on account of the death of his father, who was an employee of the respondent University. The petitioner also sought quashing of the Circular dated 23-02-2001. 4. The respondent University in their counter affidavit submitted that the petitioner's father was inducted as a daily wager and continued to remain as such till his death on 16.02.1998. It was pleaded that as the petitioner's father was not a regular employee of the University, the petitioner was not entitled to a regular appointment on compassionate grounds. 5. The learned Single Judge on a thorough examination of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties did not find any case in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment dated 10-8-2004. 6. We have heard Sri Manoj Tiwari, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajendra Dobhal, the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. It is not in dispute that the appellant's father was inducted by the University as a daily wager and he remained so till his death on 16-02-1998. 6. We have heard Sri Manoj Tiwari, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajendra Dobhal, the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. It is not in dispute that the appellant's father was inducted by the University as a daily wager and he remained so till his death on 16-02-1998. It is a different matter that the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that though the appellant's father had become entitled to regularisation, but the University did not regularise him on the lame excuses and the University, now, cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong. 8. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the appellant's father was a daily wager. As legal heirs of a daily wager have no right to be considered for compassionate appointment, we do not find any substance in the petitioner's (appellant herein) claim for compassionate appointment. The learned counsel for the appellant could not demonstrate as to how the Circular dated 23-02-2001 suffers from any illegality or infirmity. 9. The Special Appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. * * *