The main legal point established in the judgment is that the consideration of a candidate for appointment is dependent on the availability of vacancies, and a selected candidate has no right to the post and cannot claim appointment as a matter of right.

( 1 ) THESE are petitions under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating contempt proceeding against the respondents for the alleged defiance of Division Bench judgment and order dated 24-5-1996 of this Court in Special Appeal No. 384 of 1993 and Writ Petition No. 16816 of 1993. Both the contempt petitions arise out of the common judgment and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

( 2 ) HEARD Sri K. M. L. Hajela assisted by Sri S. M. A. Kazmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sunit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

( 3 ) THE short fact of the case giving rise to the contempt petition is that U. P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam advertised 70 posts of Sub Engineers (Civil) in the year 1988 inviting applications for appointment. The vacancy was subsequently increaesd from 70 to 146. The petitioners were diploma holders in civil engineering and being eligible applied in the prescribed proforma for selection and appointment. They also appeared in the written test as well as interview conducted in the year 1989. However, when their results were not declared, the petitioner, Santosh Kumar Srivastava, filed Writ Petition No. 30071 of 1992 which was heard and allowed vide judgment and order dated 21-5-1993. The operative of the order is as under :"for the reasons given in writ petition No. 5859 of 1991 Mahsh Kumar v. U. P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Lucknow and another the, respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order. In case the petitioner qualifies in the said examination, then a letter of appointment may be issued in his favour within a period of one month from the date of declaration of the result. The writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. "

( 4 ) RAJKIYA Nirman Nigam Limited filed Special Appeal No. 384 of 1993 for setting aside the above order of the learned single Judge. The Division Bench of this Court while hearing the special appeal also summoned Writ Petition No. 16816 of 1993 filed by Sri Rakesh Kumar Sharma and they were heard together and disposed of vide judgment and order dated 24-5-1996. The Division Bench in view of the settled legal position that no mandamus can be issued directing issuance of appointment order to the petitioner even if he is successful in the recruitment examination and a selected candidate cannot claim appointment as a matter of right, quashed that part of the order of the learned single Judge whereby mandamus was issued for issuing the letter of appointment in favour of the petitioner. However, their Lordships directed the appellant Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. to declare the result of the recruitment examination within four weeks. It was futher pointed out that if the petitioners are declared successful, they may be considered for appointment in accordance with law. The operative portion of the order of the Division Bench is as under :"accordingly, it is ordered that the respondents shall declare the result of the recruitment examination within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment and thereafter if the petitioners are found to be successful in the examination consider their cases for appointment in accordance with law keeping in view the vacancy position. The Special Appeal and the writ petition are disposed of on the above terms. No costs. "

( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, the results have been declared pursuant to the order of the Division Bench in special appeal and petitioner Rakesh Kumar Sharma has been declared successful and he stands at Serial No. 62 in the merit list but the petitioner Santosh Kumar Srivastava could not qualify the examination.

( 6 ) IT is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contemnor opposite party has not considered the claim of appointment of petitioner Rakesh Kumar Sharma who was at Serial No. 62 of the