HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAIVS: HON'BLE SHRS H.L. DATTU, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI D.R. DESHMUKM, J. Petitioner Respondents Writ Petition No.1408 OF 2000 S. Mohana Murafi, S/o. 8. Raja Rao, C/o, B. Viswanadham, R!y. Qr. No*1431/A, Wireiess Colony, Biiaspur (M.P.) Versus 1. The Union of tndia, through Generai Manager, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Calcutta - 43. 2. The Divisionat Railway Manager, South Eastern Rai!w®y,Bilaspur (M.P.) 3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Eastem Raiiway, Bitaspur (M.P.) 4. The Chief Pereonnet Officer, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Calcutta-43. Petition under Artiote 72G1227 ofthe Constitution of indta. Present: Shri Panakaj Agrav^i, counsei for the petitioner Shri K.M. Ansari, counsel for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 30"April, 2007) The fottowing oral order ofthe Court was passed by H.L. Dattu, C.J: tn this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitutton ©findia, the petitioner calls in question the order passed by the Centrat Administrative Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") in O.A. No. 880/1998. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has rejected the apptication filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was one of the appticants to the advertised posts. He was called for the interview, but, not seiected in the inteMew process. A^rieved by the action ofthe employer in non-selecting to the advertised posts,,he was before the Tribunat. The Tribunal has stated that the petitioner has no right to question his non-setection before it, merely because he had participated in the interview process. At the time of hearing of this petition, learned counset for the petitioner •2- {^^/- contends that the petitioner was justified in approaching the Tribunal against his non-selection, in view of Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunal^s Act1985 (for short, "the Act") and therefore, first and foremost the apptication filed by the petitioner was maintainable before the Tribunal and if for any reason, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, he could maintain a writ petition before this Court. On merits learned oounsel woutd contencjl that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the writ petitlon only on the ground that the petitioner has no right to question his non selection by frie respondents. 3. It is now well settted by a series of decision of the Supreme Court that the empanelment of the candidates in the setect list confers no right on the candidates to appointment on acoount of being so empanelted. At the best, it is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does nat amount to selection nor does it create a vested right to be appojnted untess the service rules provide to the contrar^. As there is no right to the post till setectton is finalized, it is within the power of the respondents to re-advertise for the remaining posts. 4. In the present case, it is the allegation of the petitioner that though he has done well in the interview, he is not setected by the selection oommittee. Except making this bald alfegation, the petitioner does not find fault with the seiection process conducted by the selection committee. Keeping in vi©wali th^e aspects, the Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the apptication filed by the petitioner. We do not see any error in the flndirgs and conclusion reached by the Tribunat. Therefore, interference with the said order is not catied for. Accordingly, petition '^'quires to be rejected and it is rejected. Orderect accordingly. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge