Mere certificate verification or selection does not confer any right on candidates to seek for appointment, and appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules in force.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 5th respondent proceedings in T.U.S.O.Mu.No.1840/Atte/2014 dated 20.11.2014 and to quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue appointment order to the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in consonance with the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.020007/d1/2009 dated 07/2009 from 15.07.2009 with all consequential benefits with arrears of pay including seniority and all other benefits.)

1. The writ petition is filed questioning the validity of the rejection of the candidature of the writ petitioner for selection to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (Urdu).

2. The petitioner participated in the process of selection, as his name was sponsored through District Employment exchange during the relevant point of time. The petitioner was not selected and appointed.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents relying on the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent made a submission that the petitioner was mistakenly called for certificate verification by the 3rd respondent / Teacher Recruitment Board. The respondents 1 and 2 have no role to select the candidates and call for certificate verification.

4. In view of the fact that the petitioner was erroneously called for certificate verification, despite the fact that he was not selected, his name was dropped from the selection list. However, the petitioner has not received any appointment order. Thus, no right can be claimed based on the certificate verification done by the 3rd respondent.

5. Mere certificate verification or selection would not confer any right on candidates to seek for appointment. Appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules in force.

6. In the present case, the petitioner was mistakenly called for certificate verification and therefore, such verification cannot be a ground to seek appointment. That apart, the selection was concluded in the year 2014 and 8 years lapsed. This being the factum, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition Stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.