NAWAL KUMAR PATHAK Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON this application for listing we have proceeded to hear the appeal on merits. Heard the counsel for the appellant Sri Ved Prakash Shukla and Sri S.S. Raza for the State. The appellant was a candidate for selection for B.T.C. but he was not selected. The writ petition was filed by him claiming the following reliefs: (i)"issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to declare the petitioner successful in the B.T.C. Entrance Examination 1998-99 on the basis of marks obtained by the petitioner as well as marks obtained on the basis of educational qualification and teacher's son certificate. (ii)issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to make admission of the petitioner in B.T.C. two years training. (iii)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to declare and communicate the result of B.T.C. for the year 1998-99 without further delay. (iv)issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the pleadings of the parties and the fact that the appellant could not secure any position in the merit list and the final select list, he having secured only 172.58% marks, as against 197.91% marks secured by the last candidate of the category, to which he belonged, whose name has been recommended. That being so, the appellant cannot claim selection on the basis of the said marks. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the aforesaid order argued that an amendment application was moved by the appellant before the writ court but without considering the said application the writ petition has been decided. We have gone through the amendment application and we find that in the amendment application, a prayer has been made that since the appellant could not be selected/appointed in the 1998-99 session, therefore, he should be selected for the next session. This prayer also cannot be accepted. The appellant being unsuccessful in the selection in the year in which he applied, cannot claim selection for any subsequent year on the basis of the selection held for the year in question. The appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed.