Absence of requisite specialized educational qualifications and non-existence of vacancies preclude claim for appointment.

The petitioner, a part-time teacher with over 48 months of service, applied for the post of Lecturer (Horticulture) pursuant to a 1998 advertisement.

The respondents did not call him for an interview, asserting he lacked "special studies" in Horticulture required by the eligibility criteria.

The petitioner approached the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) in O.A. No. 2261/1999, which granted an interim order on 23.12.1999 directing the respondents to interview him before filling the post.

However, the State had already completed appointments by 08.07.1999.

Following the abolition of the SAT, the matter was transferred to the High Court. On 03.01.2011, the Directorate of Public Instructions formally rejected the petitioner’s representation, leading to the present Writ Petition.

1. Whether the petitioner possessed the requisite "special studies" in Horticulture as stipulated in the advertisement.

2. Whether the respondents' refusal to interview the petitioner was discriminatory or illegal given the prior SAT directions.

The court examined the eligibility criteria defined in the recruitment advertisement, which required M.Sc. (Agriculture) in Horticulture or B.Sc. (Agriculture) with "special studies" and experience in Horticulture.

The court applied the principle that while a candidate has a right to be considered for selection, they do not have an absolute right to be selected, referencing Suresh Kumar Lalit Kumar Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2023) 19 SCC 596.

Furthermore, the court considered Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the efficacy and enforcement of SAT orders post-abolition.

The Court found that the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence of "special studies" in Horticulture beyond his general B.Sc. in Agriculture and work experience.

It noted that the SAT's 1999 direction to interview the petitioner was issued in "complete oblivion" of the fact that the recruitment process had already concluded and all posts were filled by July 1999—months before the SAT order.

The Court reasoned that since the appointments were already finalized, there was no vacancy to which the petitioner could be appointed.

Additionally, the Court observed that the SAT order had lost its efficacy over time, and the petitioner’s failure to meet the specific educational qualification meant the authorities did not err in rejecting his candidature.

The Court further held that the relief sought was untenable as the recruitment process had concluded before the Tribunal’s intervention.

The Court answered both issues in the negative, finding no material to interfere with the impugned order dated 03.01.2011 and dismissed the petition.