JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. A.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Biswanath Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court for directing the respondents to provide him the compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme for death of his father namely Haridas Malakar who was serving as the regular “Mazdoor” under the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, in short, “BSNL”. After the death of his father on 15.12.2010, the petitioner applied for an appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme commensurate to his qualification. The said application was rejected by the BSNL and the rejection was made by the Circle High Power Committee, (in short, “CHPC”) whose meeting was held on 22.06.2013. By the communication dated 16.05.2016 [Annexure-O to the writ petition] the petitioner was apprised of the said decision. That apart, the petitioner has challenged the selection procedure based on weightage point system for assessment of indigents. 3. There is no dispute in respect of the death of the said government employee in the harness, the petitioner’s submission of the application for the appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme as well as its rejection by the said CHPC. But the petitioner has challenged the said decision taken by the CHPC on 22.06.2013, on the ground that as per the BSNL Corporate Office Guidelines someone who receives the weightage point less than 55% cannot be appointed under the Die-in-harness Scheme. According to the weightage points as determined by the BSNL, the petitioner got 54% which is less than 55% and as such his case was not considered favourably and was rejected. 4. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that the said selection process is absolutely arbitrary and an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the said Corporate Guidelines for determination of the weightage has to be struck down by this court and the respondents be further directed to give the compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme to the petitioner for the untimely death of the deceased employee. 5. The petitioner has admitted that by the letter No.F.457/GMT/Agt/Vig/03 dated 24.08.2016, the respondents intimated the petitioner that the petitioner has secured weightage point 54% and as such, the Circle High Power Committee (CHPC) did not consider his prayer for an appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme favourably. 5. The petitioner has admitted that by the letter No.F.457/GMT/Agt/Vig/03 dated 24.08.2016, the respondents intimated the petitioner that the petitioner has secured weightage point 54% and as such, the Circle High Power Committee (CHPC) did not consider his prayer for an appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme favourably. The petitioner has been considered as non-indigent as he secured weightage points 54 which is below 55 and according to the said BSNL Corporate Guidelines, non-indigent cannot get the appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme. Even thereafter, the petitioner had approached for getting a job under the Die-in-harness Scheme, but without any positive yield. So far the qualification and experience are concerned, the petitioner is suitable for appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme. In the family of the petitioner, there is no earning member and they are living on the pension that the mother of the petitioner has been receiving. The petitioner has stated in Para-15 of the writ petition as follows : “His case has been examined and the compassionate ground obligation has been rejected by the Circle High Power Committee meeting which was held on 22.06.2013 as the weightage points is less than 55% which is as per BSNL corporate Official guidelines and in this letter the respondent No.3 also mentioned that as the case was rejected by the Circle High Power Committee, the same was already intimated.” 6. The petitioner has in effect challenged the legality and sustainability of the order dated 22.06.2013 as adopted by the CHPC. The petitioner had submitted his application on 02.04.2011 for his job under the Die-in-harness Scheme and he was later on apprised that his prayer for a job under the Die-in-harness Scheme has been rejected on 22.06.2013. The petitioner has further submitted that the family left by the deceased employee does not have the independent source of income and they are subsisting on the monthly pension as received by the petitioner’s mother. The petitioner was initially under impression that prayer for appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme would be considered, but when he received the communication that the Circle High Power Committee (CHPC) has rejected his prayer, he had no other alternative but to approach this court. 7. The petitioner was initially under impression that prayer for appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme would be considered, but when he received the communication that the Circle High Power Committee (CHPC) has rejected his prayer, he had no other alternative but to approach this court. 7. The respondents by traversing the averments in the petition filed their reply particularly in response to the averments in Paras-8 and 12 and asserted in no uncertain words that the petitioner has secured net points below 55% (i.e. 54) and thus he shall be treated as non-indigent. So the claim for job under the Die-in-harness Scheme could not be considered in favour of the petitioner by High Power Committee. The respondents have produced the communication under No.F-457/GMT/Agt/Vig/03 dated 24.08.2016. In the said communication dated 24.08.2016, the BSNL has laid their assessment criteria which are inter alia as under : “v. Cases with 55 or more NET POINTS shall be prima facie treated as eligible consideration by Corporate Office High Power Committee for compassionate group appointment. vi. Cases with NET POINTS below 55 (i.e. 54 or less) shall be treated as non-indigent rejected.” The petitioner has disputed the fact that he got only 54%. 8. Mr. A.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the family left by the deceased employee is reeling under serious hardship inasmuch as there is no earning member in the family. The petitioner has all qualifications to get a government job under the Die-in-harness Scheme. Mr. Pal, learned counsel has further submitted that these parameters have no nexus with the object that the Die-in-harness Scheme seeks to achieve. It creates a barrier for the person who is otherwise entitled to get the appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme. The respondents should have exercised their discretion with latitude as the family left by the deceased employee has plunged in a pitiable circumstance. As such, the petitioner has urged this court for interfering with the process directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner under the Die-in-harness Scheme for death of the deceased employee. 9. Mr. The respondents should have exercised their discretion with latitude as the family left by the deceased employee has plunged in a pitiable circumstance. As such, the petitioner has urged this court for interfering with the process directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner under the Die-in-harness Scheme for death of the deceased employee. 9. Mr. Biswanath Majumder, learned CGC has appeared for the respondents and has laid two points very emphatically, viz.- (i) A scientific method has been used for determining the weightage point for assessment of the indigent condition by the BSNL Corporate Guidelines (ii) Having referred to Annexure-R/2, it has been stated that for determining the weightage points, 30 marks are allocated for the following four aspects : “1. Dependent’s weightage (a) 5 points per dependents. (b) 5 points per handicap dependent. (c) 5 points per minor child. (d) 5 points per unmarried daughter (after 18 yrs. of age). The other criteria are : 2. Basic Family Pension are drawn by any of the family member. 3. Left out service. 4. Applicant’s weightage on their situation. 5. Terminal benefits including DCRG, GPF/EPF, Leave encashment, CGEGIS/GSLI, LIC policies, ex-gratia payment etc.” 10. Having appreciated the submission by the counsel and the records as placed in the proceeding, this court is of the view that setting up of the scheme for Die-in-harness is an well-thought steps for helping the family of the deceased employee to tide over the stringent financial constraint that visits the family. This court has perused and scrutinized the said scheme and the weightage-point instruction as determined against each of the aspects with care and caution and is of the view that the provision as made does not offend the equality clause nor the fairness in action. It is the policy of the BSNL that they would give compassionate appointment to those persons who would get the weightage point above 55. Cases with 55 or more NET POINTS shall not be treated as eligible for consideration and those persons shall be treated as non-indigent. 11. In the present case, the petitioner has secured 54 as the weightage point and thus, he has been considered as the non-indigent person. Since the petitioner was adjudged a non-indigent person, he cannot get the benefit of the Die-in-harness Scheme as formulated by the BSNL Corporate Guidelines. 12. 11. In the present case, the petitioner has secured 54 as the weightage point and thus, he has been considered as the non-indigent person. Since the petitioner was adjudged a non-indigent person, he cannot get the benefit of the Die-in-harness Scheme as formulated by the BSNL Corporate Guidelines. 12. The respondents as it transpires from the records, has categorically stated that while making assessment, the respondent-BSNL has given the weightage points and aggregate of those weightage points stands at 54% and as such, the petitioner cannot be treated as the indigent person, rather he is liable to be treated as non-indigent person. Since the challenge against the reasonableness of the policy regarding the weightage point has fallen through, and evidently the petitioner’s claim is not covered by the said scheme, the petitioner cannot have any right to claim any benefit. If the petitioner is not covered by the scheme, no mandamus can be issued by this court. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim any benefits including the compassionate appointment under the said scheme. 13. The paramount consideration in this petition hinged on the scope of the Compassionate Ground Appointment (CGA) as published by the communication under No.273-18/2005-Pers.IV dated 27.06.2007. It has been clearly laid down in the said policy under Para 2.0(II) as under : “2.0(II) the assessment criteria for recommendation of the indigent condition of the family by the Circle High Power Committee shall be – (a) Cases with 55 or more NET POINTS shall be prima-facie treated as eligible for consideration by Corporate Office High Power Committee for compassionate ground appointment and (b) Cases with NET POINTS below 55 (i.e.54 or less) shall be treated as non-indigent and rejected.” The court cannot rewrite the provisions of the Scheme for giving Die-in-harness appointment when the person who seeks for such relief is not covered by the said Scheme. 14. Having observed thus, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.