SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. The petitioner claims compassionate appointment on the ground that his wife who was appointed as Shiksha Mitra for the Session 2002-03 and continued thereafter, died on 22. 5. 2008 and after her death the petitioner has moved an application seeking compassionate appointment but neither any decision has been taken thereafter nor he has been provided compassionate appointment. He, therefore, prayed that this application be directed to be decided by the respondent No. 4. 2. However, in my view, the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and, therefore, there is no question of directing the respondent No. 4 to decide the aforesaid application of petitioner. It is not disputed by the petitioner that there is no provision either statutory or otherwise providing for any scheme of compassionate appointment to the heirs of the person who died while working as Shiksha Mitra. It is well-settled, if there is no scheme for providing compassionate appointment the same cannot be claimed or granted as held by the Apex Court in Indian Drags and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Devki Devi and others, 2006 (5) SCC 523 : 2006 (7) AWC 7188 (SC) and the same has been followed in the case of State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh, JT 2007 (3) SC 398 : 2007 (2) AWC 1552 (SC), wherein the Apex Court held as under : "there is no right whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be. " 3. In the absence of any such scheme available for the heirs of the Shiksha Mitra the claim of petitioner is thoroughly misconceived. Moreover, there is another aspect of the matter. The appointment of Shiksha Mitra is made on tenure basis for a particular session. The wife of petitioner has died on 22. 5. 2008 and for the Session 2008-09 she has no legal right to continue except of consideration of her case for renewal on the basis of her past performance otherwise the post is liable to be filled in by fresh selection. In such kind of appointment normally the claim of compassionate appointment is not attracted. 4. 5. 2008 and for the Session 2008-09 she has no legal right to continue except of consideration of her case for renewal on the basis of her past performance otherwise the post is liable to be filled in by fresh selection. In such kind of appointment normally the claim of compassionate appointment is not attracted. 4. In view of above, it is evident that the petitioner has no personal right to continue on the post of Shiksha Mitra and hence also the concept of compassionate appointment could not affect to such kind of appointment. 5. The writ petition, therefore, lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. .