ABDUL JABBAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a special appeal. The appellant in this special appeal was the petitioner in this Court. It appears that the petitioner was a candidate for the post of apprenticeship in the Collectorate. A preliminary examination was held by the Collectorate for the purpose of recruitment of candidates for this post. In this preliminary test examination the petitioner had appeared. He was declared successful. He was required to report. He accordingly reported himself on the 60th February, 1958. No work, however, was entrusted to him. He made two representations on 27th June, 1958, and 27th July, 1958. He did not receive any reply. Eventually on 8th September, 1958, he received a communication informing him that the examination in which he had appeared had been cancelled owing to certain irregularities. Thereupon the petitioner came to this Court and moved the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen. In the writ petition the prayer of the applicant was that a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 8-9-1958, should be granted or a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the respondent, the State of Uttar Pradesh, not to remove the petitioner from his service. His writ petition having been dismissed by a learned single Judge he has filed this special appeal.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the appellant we are of opinion that there is no substance in this appeal. The examination held by the Collectorate was merely a preliminary examination for recruitment. It is conceded before us by the learned counsel that it did not entitle him to any service whatsoever. Even if he had been appointed as a servant he would have been an apprentice, and, as such, he would be merely a temporary servant, and his services could under the present circumstances, be dispensed with at any time. It is to be noted that this is not a case of removal from service by way of penalty.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the petitioner had passed the examination and this Court should declare that he had passed the examination. We are of opinion that a declaration Of this nature would be a futile one. This Court does not interfere by way of writ unless the right of a party is affected in any matter, and it is rightly conceded that the cancellation of examination has not deprived him of any legal right or has, in any way, affected his legal rights.