JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in memo no. 3398 dated 23.9.2005 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Gaya by which he has rejected the proposal of the Managing Committee of the Kashmi Middle School, Gaya to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground as a teacher in the said school. The reason for rejecting the proposal stated in the aforesaid order is that the petitioner is untrained and there is no provision for appointment of an untrained teacher in an aided minority school. 3. The admitted facts in this case are that the husband of the petitioner was working as a teacher in the aforesaid school which is a Government aided minority school and he died on 27.4.1998 in harness. Thereafter the petitioner being intermediate pass applied in prescribed format on 5.9.1998 for appointment on compassionate ground as a teacher in the said school. The same was recommended by the Managing Committee of the school but by the impugned order of the District Superintendent of Education, Gaya the proposal has been turned down. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case relies upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 6337/1998 (Santosh Lall Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) in which it was held by this Court that the Government decision contained in memo no. 1635 dated 4.8.1994 with respect to non-appointment on compassionate ground of teachers working in aided minority institutions was applicable only in so far as the appointment under the State of Bihar is concerned. It was further held that under the policy decision of the State Government as contained in circular dated 5.10.1991 the policy of compassionate appointment is to apply to even institutions aided by the State and accordingly such institutions are required to consider the case for compassionate appointment of dependents of their deceased employees who died in harness. It is thus submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said school had rightly recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and the same has been wrongly turned down by the DSE, Gaya. 5. It is thus submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said school had rightly recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and the same has been wrongly turned down by the DSE, Gaya. 5. In this regard learned counsel also relies upon a circular of the State Government dated 8.8.1991 by which the condition regarding training in case of appointment on compassionate ground of a teacher has been relaxed with the condition that within three years of the said appointment the person concerned will have to fulfill the condition regarding obtaining training. It is submitted that the same principle ought to have been applied in the case of the petitioner and the recommendation in this regard ought to have been accepted by the State-respondents with the same condition. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that in the case of Santosh Lall this Court had merely held that policy relating to compassionate appointment by the State Government will have to be applied by the aided institutions also in making appointment under them. However, any question for appointment has to be considered with respect to the policy laid down by the State Government with regard to appointment under such institutions. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that the Government circular, i.e., the circular of the Human Resources Development Department dated 8.8.1991 relates only to dependents of deceased government servant and the same does not in terms apply to dependents of deceased employees of aided minority schools. It is pointed out that under the Government circular dated 20.8.1982 the condition of training for appointment of teachers of aided minority institutions is mandatory and there is no circular of the State Government relaxing the same in the matter of any appointment or even compassionate appointment in such institutions and therefore, the conditions will have to be fulfilled even in the matter of compassionate appointment. On a consideration of the rival submissions this Court is unable to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. On a consideration of the rival submissions this Court is unable to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident from the decision of this Court in Santosh Lalls case (supra) that it was only held therein that the aided minority institutions will also have to apply the policy of compassionate appointment in the matter of dependents of their deceased employees who died in harness, but it is no where stated in the said decision nor it can be held that any relaxation with respect to any matter which is applied by the State Government with respect to dependents of its deceased employees will automatically apply in the case of aided minority institutions. With respect to such institutions separate circulars have been issued by the State Government from time to time, including the one dated 20.8.1982 which is Annexure-D to the counter affidavit, and in the said circular clear provision has been made that training is a pre-requisite for appointment in such institutions. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show that the said requirement has been relaxed in the case of any appointment or in the case of appointment on compassionate ground in aided minority schools. In the said circumstances, it is not open to him to rely upon a general circular of the Government with respect to deceased Government employees as it cannot be said that service in Government schools and in a government aided minority shcool stand precisely on the same footing. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the case of one Smt. Kaishar Jahan in whose case appointment on compassionate ground was made by order dated 3.4.1998 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Gaya in a Government school. Under what circumstances the said appointment has been made is not known to this Court. In any case it is an accepted principle that the provisions of Ariticles 14 and 16 regarding equality in the matter of public employment cannot be so applied as to perpetuate an illegality that may have been committed in any case by the authorities. Under what circumstances the said appointment has been made is not known to this Court. In any case it is an accepted principle that the provisions of Ariticles 14 and 16 regarding equality in the matter of public employment cannot be so applied as to perpetuate an illegality that may have been committed in any case by the authorities. The case of any petitioner who approaches this Court in its writ jurisdiction must stand on the basis of the legal rights of the petitioner and merely because an illegality may have been committed in any other matter, the same does not entitle a petitioner before this Court to similar relief under its writ jurisdiction In this regard referencemay be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gursharan Singh & ors. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee & ors: (1996) 2 SCC 459 . 8. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussions, there does not appear to be any merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.