ORDER : 1. The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner for the post of Customer Service Supervisor / Clerk (Gen) on regular basis as per the proceedings proceeded in Ref.No.HRD-R/00T/UG/11 dated 10.11.2008. 2. The petitioner's mother already was working with the respondent organization as a Casual Labourer and in that situation, a scheme was brought under, circular dated 14/20.09.2007 by the respondents. Under the scheme, transfer of employment to the child (major) of those widows, who have been provided employment on compassionate ground on casual or temporary basis and are above 45 years of age who have health and other restrictions, can be given. 3. Based on the said circular, the petitioner's mother made an application to the respondents on 29.07.2008 seeking for providing employment by transfer of the petitioner's mother employment to the petitioner and accordingly, the application of the petitioner has been considered as per circular referred above. 4. In this regard, it is the case of the petitioner that, he was called for personal interview for the post of Customer Service Supervisor / Clerk (Gen) on regular basis on compassionate ground in NACIL Air India by proceedings of the third respondent dated 10.11.2008 and he appeared for said interview on 16.12.2008 and produced the certificates. According to him, he was selected for the said post and when he was sent to medical fitness test by the third respondent, he was found to be fit for appointment. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that, when that being so, thereafter, the respondents have not come forward to give appointment to the petitioner, despite the aforesaid procedure had been followed, where, the petitioner has been subjected to the personal interview. Therefore, he has filed this Writ of Mandamus with the prayer sought for herein. 6. When the case is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner, however, the stand of the petitioner as has been projected in the affidavit filed in respect of this Writ Petition with connected documents filed in the typed set of papers have been perused by this Court. 7. 6. When the case is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner, however, the stand of the petitioner as has been projected in the affidavit filed in respect of this Writ Petition with connected documents filed in the typed set of papers have been perused by this Court. 7. On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the first to fourth respondents, by relying upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents would contend that, in fact, it was a scheme by issuance of circular dated 14/20.09.2007 for offer of transfer of employment to the major child of the widows who had already been provided employment on compassionate ground on casual or temporary basis and those employees should have been 45 years of age and might have been affected by health or other issues. 8. Only in that context, in order to transfer the job, the petitioner's mother who was holding the job on casual or temporary basis, to and in favour of her son, i.e., petitioner, made an application on 29.07.2008. Only pursuant to the said application, the petitioner was called for verification of the certificates and qualification that has been wrongly construed as if the petitioner has called for independently to consider for appointment to the post called Customer Service Supervisor / Clerk (Gen) on compassionate grounds. 9. In this context, the learned Standing counsel would further state that, subsequently, the very scheme of providing employment on compassionate ground by way of transfer to the existing employees child has been given up and accordingly, no one including the petitioner was appointed under the said scheme and in view of the scrapping of the said scheme itself, those who had already been working like the petitioner's mother directed to be continued till the superannuation. 10. In this context, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon the following averments made in the counter affidavit, which reads thus: "5. By a circular dated 14/20.09.2007 for offer of transfer of employment to the child (major) of those widows, who have been provided employment on compassionate ground on casual or temporary basis and are above 45 years of age and may have health or other restrictions was issued. By a circular dated 14/20.09.2007 for offer of transfer of employment to the child (major) of those widows, who have been provided employment on compassionate ground on casual or temporary basis and are above 45 years of age and may have health or other restrictions was issued. Based on the said circular, the petitioner's mother made an application to the respondent on 29.07.2008 for providing employment to the petitioner herein. His application was considered as per circular dated 14/20th September 2007. 6. Accordingly, vide letter dated 10.11.2008, the petitioner, along with other cases of compassionate appointment, was called for personal interview on 16.12.2008 for considering them for appointment on out of turn basis for any suitable post. The petitioner who was not a graduate, was considered for a post in the unskilled category, i.e., Commercial Assistant III / Technical Assistant III / Office Assistant III / Attender III / Cleaner. Thereafter, the petitioner was advised to undergo medical examination. However, in the Medical examination the petitioner was found to be having 'Artial Septal Defect' (ASD), i.e., heart problem and hearing loss. The petitioner had undergone a surgery for ASD closure on 19.02.2009 and the report was sent to the Medical Services Department, Mumbai Head Office. However, since the petitioner also had bilateral moderate hearing loss which was beyond the prescribed pre-employment medical examination standards, an email was addressed to the Medical Officer at Chennai to advise the petitioner to revert back after undergoing the treatment for hearing loss. However, the petitioner did not report to Medical Services Department, thereafter. 7. I submit that, by this time, revised instructions were issued by the Director-Personnel of the respondents Headquarters on 26.11.2008 stating all recruitments including those under process were freezed. As a result no appointment was made arising out of the said selection process. Therefore, the petitioners claim for appointment on the basis of the call letter dated 10.11.2008 is not maintainable. 8. I submit that the petitioner's mother was continued to be engaged on casual daily rated basis and in 2015 she reached 58 years. She was not discontinued from employment in the middle as per the circular dated 14/20.09.2007. As such, the petitioner cannot claim for compassionate ground appointment as a matter of right, much less a legal right." 11. 8. I submit that the petitioner's mother was continued to be engaged on casual daily rated basis and in 2015 she reached 58 years. She was not discontinued from employment in the middle as per the circular dated 14/20.09.2007. As such, the petitioner cannot claim for compassionate ground appointment as a matter of right, much less a legal right." 11. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents and have also perused the materials placed on record. 12. No doubt, the petitioner was working already at the respondent organization on compassionate ground as a casual worker and in order to transfer the employment to younger generation, i.e., children of such employees, who have already been working at the respondent organization on the age factor as well as health ground, the respondent organization has brought the scheme and only pursuant to the said scheme, the petitioner's mother made an application to transfer her job to the petitioner and pursuant to which, he was called for verification of certificates. 13. However, subsequently, the respondent organization decided to give up the scheme due to various administrative exigency. Therefore, the very scheme of transfer of job to the child of the worker who had already been working in the respondent organization on compassionate ground or otherwise, has been given up. 14. In view of the decision taken by the respondent organization, those who had already been working like the petitioner's mother were permitted to continue till their superannuation. This has been specifically averred by the respondent in the counter affidavit which has been quoted herein above. 15. In view of the stand taken by the respondents, where the very scheme, pursuant to the circular dated 14/20.09.2007, itself either has been scrapped or given up by taking administrative decision in this regard by the respondent organization, no right is accrued on the petitioner for getting the job by way of transfer by the mother of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner's plea that he was called for interview for appointment in the respondent organization and he has successfully completed the interview and was selected for the said post, cannot have any weightage and the said plea cannot be accepted by this Court. 16. Therefore, the petitioner's plea that he was called for interview for appointment in the respondent organization and he has successfully completed the interview and was selected for the said post, cannot have any weightage and the said plea cannot be accepted by this Court. 16. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accept the plea raised by the petitioner, consequently, this Writ Petition fails, accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.