MOHD EHTESHAMUL HASAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINEET Saran, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Sri V. K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and Sri D. S. Shukla, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India appearing for respondent No. 5.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that in response to an advertisement issued on 2-3-2005 by respondent No. 4, the District Tuberculosis Officer as Member Secretary of the District Tuberculosis Control Society, Allahabad inviting applications for filling up the post of Tuberculosis Health Visitor (T. B. H. V.) the petitioner had applied. THE qualification as mentioned in the said advertisement was that the candidate should have passed Intermediate with Science. It is not the case of the petitioner that in response to the said application filed by the petitioner he had been called for interview or any other action has been taken with regard to his selection. However, a fresh advertisement was issued on 14-6-2005 again inviting applications for the post of T. B. H. V. in the subsequent advertisement the essential qualification for appointment on the post of T. B. H. V. was Intermediate with Biology. In this advertisement it was also provided that those candidates who have already applied in response to the earlier advertisement need not apply afresh and their earlier applications shall be considered. According to the petitioner he has passed Intermediate with Science but not with Biology as a subject. THE petitioner contends that since he was eligible on the basis of the qualification mentioned in the first advertisement dated 2-3-2005, his application ought to have been considered in response to the subsequent advertisement also and he should have been called for interview.

(3.) SRI V. K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 4 has further submitted that even after selection for appointment on a particular post the candidate does not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed. Reliance in this regard has been placed on two decisions of the apex Court, namely, Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India, JT 1991 (2) SC 380 and State of M. P. & Ors. v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav & Ors. , (1994) 6 SCC 151. As such, it has been contended that in such view of the matter, the petitioner who had merely filed his application for being given appointment does not acquire any right to be appointed or be considered for appointment.