V.K.Shukla, J. - (1.) Petitioner applied for consideration of his candidature pursuant to advertisement dated 09.08.2003, which was in respect to instructor in Industry Department. Petitioner was called for interview and his name figured in the list of successful candidates published on 22.12.2004, but in spite of that he was not issued appointment order. Petitioner filed writ petition No.2211 of 2006, wherein a direction was issued on 13.01.2006 to decide the matter. Thereafter grievance of petitioner has been looked into and order dated 16.10.2006 has been passed, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court in present writ petition.
(2.) Sri Ashok Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner, contended that on totally unjustified grounds, petitioner's candidature has been sought to be non-suited, whereas in all eventuality, petitioner was entitled to be offered appointment. Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned counsel representing respondents, on the other hand, contended that petitioner had not qualified for the post for which appointment was to be made, as such none of the legal rights of petitioner has been infringed, and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual position, which emerges, is to the effect that advertisement had been published for the post of instructor in the scale of Rs.3200-85-4900/- in the trade of Electric Art and Motor Mechanic, but instead of recommending the instructor from the aforementioned category, recommendation was made in respect of Instructor turner, which was not the requirement, and for this reason, U. P. Public Service Commission did not recommend the name of petitioner who was instructor turner in spite of the fact that his name found place in the list of successful candidates. Once for valid reasons, respondents are intending not to offer appointment to petitioner, mere inclusion of his name in the list of successful candidates does not confer any right on him, in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shankarshan Das v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1612 as well as in the case of Union Territory v. Dilbagh Singh, 1993 SC 796 and State of U.P. v. Raj Kumar Sharma, 2006 (3) SCC 330 .
(3.) Here, in the present case valid reasons have been given for non-suiting the claim of petitioner that he does not come from the trade for which requirement was there. In view such cogent reasons being given, there is no scope of interference. Writ petition lacks substance, and the same is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.;