ORDER
1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Murthy, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf ofthe respondents, and having regard to the fact that the petitioner had not questioned the order of removal from service, we are of the opinion that the question of issuing a direction by this Court upon the respondents to grant pension on compassionate grounds does not arise. We are also ofthe opinion that no relief can be granted only on sympathy and on humanitarian grounds, which is contrary to law. This aspect of the matter has been considered in Ashok Saha v. State of West Bengal, Cal.LT 1999 (2) 1, wherein it was held:
“14. The said decision therefore, is also distinguishable on facts. On the other
hand there are series of decisions wherein the Supreme Court has clearly laid down the law that a pupil who is not entitled to appear in the examination should not be allowed to do so in violation of the statutory regulation. Reference in this connection, may be made to A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society v. Government of A.P. reported in 1986 (2) SCC 677 = State of T.N. v. St. Joseph Teachers’ Training Institute reported in
1991 (3) SCC 37; State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale ; Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati ; Central Board of Secondary Education v. Sunil, 1997 (1) CLJ 143, a Division Bench of this Court was considering a matter relating to the right of a person to take admission and not with the question raised therein. In this jurisdiction also a Division Bench of this Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and others v. Adarsh Kumar Sedhwarayar and others, reported in 1998 (2) CHN 61 upon considering the aforementioned decision as also the decision of the Apex Court in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kumar Bonsai and another, as also other decisions held:-
‘It is beyond any dispute that the said Park Point School was not affiliated with the appellant. The writ petitioner might have taken admission under a misconception but it is beyond any cavil of doubt that unless the statute permits appearance of students as private candidates they cannot be permitted to do so.’
15. The Bench further noticed-
In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar and another, ,
the law has been laid down in the following terms:
‘Thus apart from the directions as to appointment on compassionate grounds being against statutory provisions, such direction does not take note of this fact. Whatever it may be the Court should not have directed the appointment on compassionate grounds. The jurisdiction under mandamus cannot be exercised in that fashion.”
2. In G. Kalyan Sundaram v. UCO Bank and another, Cal.LT 1995 (2) HC 201, one of us (S.B. Sinha, CJ.) had observed that in the fact of that case even sympathy has no role to play.
3. In Latham v. Richard Johnson and Nephew Limited, 1911-13 AER (Reprint) 117, Farwell L.J observed-
‘We must be careful not to allow our sympathy with the infant plaintiff to affect our judgment. Sentiment is a dangerous will o’ the wisp to take as a guide in the search for legal principles.”
4. In the State of Tamil Nadu and others v, St. Joseph Teachers’ Training College, the Apex Court observed that Court cannot grant relief on humanitarian ground alone.
5. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court and having regard to the afore mentioned observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.