- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel.
(2.) THE district Development Officer. Kushinagar issued advertisement on 10-8-98 for appointment on 63 posts of Gram Vikas Adhikari. THE petitioner applied against reserved post in the category of dependent of freedom fighters. It is alleged that in the written examination, the petitioner was not declared successful, as his candidature was not considered under the reserved category of dependent of freedom fighters. THE petitioner tiled writ petition No. 9054. of 1999 which was allowed vide Judgment dated 27- 8-99. By the aforesaid order and Judgment the respondents were directed declare the result of the petitioner. Consequently the result of the petitioner was declared and the petitioner was found successful. After interview on 9-11-2001, a select list was prepared by the respondent No. 4 on 11-11- 2001 which was sent for approval to the respondent No. 4. In the aforesaid select list one Sri Ajay Kumar Singh was selected in the general category as dependent of freedom fighters. On scrutiny made by the District Magistrate, Kushinagar in pursuance of the compliant it was found that certificate submitted by Sri Ajay Kumar Singh is false and his selection was cancelled resulting a vacancy in the category of dependent of freedom fighters. It is worthwhile to note Sri Ajay Kumar Singh has not joined the post before his result was cancelled on 7-6-2003. It appears from the record that after a period of about one year, the District Development Officer vide his letter dated 11-7-2003 recommended the mane of the petitioner for appointment in the reserved category of dependent of Freedom fighters. He also sought instructions from the respondent No. 2 for sending to the petitioner to pre-appointment training. A representation dated 7-2-2004 was also submitted by the petitioner for issuing appointment letter on the ground that his name is at serial No. 1 in the merit list of the candidates belonging to dependent of freedom fighters as the candidature of Sri Ajay Kumar Singh was cancelled. It appears that the case of the petitioner for appointment has been declined by the authorities and the District Development officer vide letter dated 15-3-2004, again requested the respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner interalia stating that he was at serial No. 1 in the merit list belonging to the reserved category of dependent of freedom fighters after the cancellation of candidature of Sri Ajay Kumar Singh. The petitioner is aggrieved due to non-consideration of the letters dated 11-7-2003 and 15-3-2004 sent by the District Development officer to the respondent No. 2.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the result of the examination in pursuance of the advertisement dated 10-8-1998 wad declared on 23-10-2001 and selection list was prepared on 11-11-2001 in which Sri Ajay Kumar Singh was placed at serial No. 1 in the reserved category of dependent of freedom fighters. It is apparent from the record that candidature of Sri Ajay Kumar Singh was cancelled after enquiry on 7-6-2003, normally, the life of the select list is permanent until and unless it is specifically provided otherwise in the Rules or in the advertisement itself. The petitioner has not been issue any appointment letter and as such he has no legal right merely on the ground that his name finds place in the select list. The law is well settled that even a select candidate has no legal right of appointment until a letter of appointment is offered to him. in the instant case no offer of appointment was given to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot claim any legal right on the basis of letter of recommendation sent by the District Development Officer dated 11-7-2003 and 15-3-2004 recommending the appointment of the petitioner in the reserved category of dependent of freedom fighters. For the reasons stated above, a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 4 for considering the appointment of the petitioner on the post o! Gram Vikas Adhikari taking into account the letters dated 11-7-2003 and 15-3-2004 of the District Development Officer, cannot be granted. Further, mandamus can not also be granted to the respondents to send the petitioner for pre-appointment training in pursuance of his selection as he has not been given appointment and no letter of appointment was issued.;