JUDGMENT 1. By the Court- The petitioner by this writ petition prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing she Chairman, U. P. Public Service Commission, Allah bad. (hereinafter referred as the UPSC in brief) not to conduct the Provincial Civil Service/Upper Subordinate Examination, 1992, scheduled to be held on 20th December, 1992, and a direction to conduct it on some other date. 2. The petitioner averted that he and a large number of candidates had applied for Research Fellowship and Eligibility for Lecturership Test which is to be conducted by the University Grafts Commission (UGC, in brief) in pursuance of an advertisement dated 10./25-9-1992 published in Employment News (Weekly). It was specified in the advertisement that the test would be he'd on 20 12- 1992. It is stated that the UGC has formulated a scheme which provides that persons who want to serve as Lecturer in degree and post-graduate colleges shall have to appear in the test examination to be organised by the UGC for the Junior Research Followship and Eligibility for Lecturership. There is one exception As per scheme, for those persons who obtained doctorate before the end of December, 1992, for them the test examination is not necessary for appointment as lecturer in degree or post-graduate colleges Candidates who have not completed and obtained doctorate before the end of December, 1992 shall have to appear in the test for appointment for lecturership in degree and post-graduate colleges conducted by the UGC. The petitioner claims that he is pursuing research work for the doctorate degree. The petitioner is fully eligible and qualified for appearing in the examination scheduled to be conducted on 20th December, 1992, by the UGC in which the petitioner has been allotted roll no. and permission to appear. The UPPSC by advertisement No. A-1/E-1/92-93 (Annexure 2' to the present writ petition) for filling certain posts for the Provincial Civil Service (PCS, In brief) and Upper Subordinate Services. It is pointed out that in the advertisement published by the UPPSC there is no date fixed for Preliminary Test examination. The petitioner averred that he is a postgraduate and a meritorious student with good academic career and also wish to come in some administrative job. Having a golden opportunity for appearing in the PCS/Upper Subordinate (Preliminary) Examination, 3992, the petitioner submitted an application for appearing in the aforesaid preliminary exam. The petitioner has been allotted roll no. The petitioner averred that he is a postgraduate and a meritorious student with good academic career and also wish to come in some administrative job. Having a golden opportunity for appearing in the PCS/Upper Subordinate (Preliminary) Examination, 3992, the petitioner submitted an application for appearing in the aforesaid preliminary exam. The petitioner has been allotted roll no. and admit card for appearing in the said test by the UPPSC. The admit card received by the petitioner from the UPPSC shows that preliminary examination has been fixed on 20-12-1992. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is eligible to appear in the Judior Research Fellowship and eligible for lecturership examination to be conducted by the UGC and he is eligible and qualified to appear in the PCS/Upper Subordinate Preliminary examination by the UPPSC. It is said that the UPPSC without taking into consideration the date fixed by the UGC for conducting the test for Junior Research fellowship and eligibility for Lecturership exam fixed 20th December, 1992. The petitioner having applied for both the exams and having issued admit card by the UGC as well as by the UPPSC cannot appear in both the test as both are to be held on the same date, i. e. 20th December, 1992, at the same time i. e 9.30 A.M. to It 30 A.M. and 2.30 P.M. and 4.30 PM. The petitioner stated that the date for preliminary examination by the UPPSC was fixed and announced subsequently after (he submission of the exam forms before the Commission, whereas the UGG had fixed the date tor their examination In the aforesaid advertisement itself the petitioner submitted that the UPPSC fixed its date for conducting . the preliminary examination's date according to its convenience without keeping in view various examinations organised by various faculties and departments. The petitioner and various other students met the Chairman, UPPSC, Allahabad and requested for postponement of date of preliminary examination fixed on 20-12-1992 and refixed the date so that it may not clash with the examination to be held by the UGC. The Chairman of the UPPSC expressed his inability to change the date fixed for the preliminary exam of PCS/Upper Subordinate Services. A representation was also sent by the students and other research scholars under the Univesity Shodh Chhatra Parisangh before the Chairman of UPPSC on 2-12-1992 which was also not favourably responded. 4. The Chairman of the UPPSC expressed his inability to change the date fixed for the preliminary exam of PCS/Upper Subordinate Services. A representation was also sent by the students and other research scholars under the Univesity Shodh Chhatra Parisangh before the Chairman of UPPSC on 2-12-1992 which was also not favourably responded. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. P. Srivatava submitted that the petitioner, is a meritorious student and expected success in either of these two examinations but he is being prevented by the UPPSC either to appear in the test to be conducted by the UGC or the Preliminary exam by the UPPSC, as he cannot appear in both the examinations which have been fixed on the same date and time, as stated above. He submitted that the act of the UPPSC is illegal and arbitrary and malafide the petitioner and thousands of other students all over the country would suffer irreparable loss and injury on account of denial by the Chairman of the UPPSC to change the date for the preliminary examination of PCS and Upper Subordinate Services the learned counsel for the petitioner though not pleaded or taken any ground of violation of Article 16 in the writ petition, argued that the action of the UPPSC is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and examined the matter and thoughtfully considered the same. 5. The provisions of Article 16 (1) are quoted below : "16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment- (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the Stale." The Article 16 is an instance of general rule of equality before law laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution and the prohibition of discrimination guranteed by Article 15 (1) with special reference to the opportunity for employment for appointment to any office under the State. The Honourable Supreme Court has explained the relative scope of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution in the following words : "Article 14 guarantees general right of equality; Articles 15 and 16 are Instance of the same right in favour of citizens in some special circumstances, Article 15 is more general than Article 16, the latter being confined to matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State Article 15 does not mention descent as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination whereas Article 16 does." Gazula Dasarataa Ramarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 564 . In our opinion, if a person who is qualified to be appointed on two posts and be applies for each of them for which the examinations are to be held on the same date and time, It is for the candidate to choose in which examination would he like to appear. The petitioner having applied for the examination to be conducted by the UGC for eligibility test for becoming a lecturer in degree and post-graudate colleges and also for the PCS/Upper Subordinate Services by the UPPSS shall have to select either of the two if there Is conflict in the date fixed for the said examinations, there is no allegation in the writ petition nor any oral submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the UPPSC changed its examination date for permitting certain other group of students or candidates appearing In any other examination whereby the petitioner was discriminated. The mere statement in the writ petition that the refusal to change the date of the examination by the Chairman of the UPPSC is malafide and arbitrary is of no consequence unless the petitioner furnished any evidence or made any such allegation to substantiate that the actios of the Chairman was malafide or arbitrary. Such argument has no merit and deserves to be repelled. It is for the petitioner to establish and make out a case that his fundamental right or a legal right is being violated illegally by the Stats before claiming issurance of a writ of mandamus. Such argument has no merit and deserves to be repelled. It is for the petitioner to establish and make out a case that his fundamental right or a legal right is being violated illegally by the Stats before claiming issurance of a writ of mandamus. In our opinion, the petitioner has failed to show that ha has a right or fundamental right to appear in any number of examinations for various appointments under the State as a matter of right and in a ease of conflict of the dates fixed for the said examinations, the State is under a legal obligation to change the said date to enable the petitioner to appear in both or any number of examinations he proposes to appear A similar question arose in Parmatma Bharane v. Honourable the Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court, AIR 1964 RAJ 13 : A Division Bench of the Rajashan High Court observed ; "The question, however, is what is guaranted by Article 16 of the Constitution. It guarantees equality of opportunity for ell citizens in matters relating to employment for appointment. 'Opportunity' as used in this Article-means chance to employment and what it guarantees is that this opportunity of employment should be equally available to all. The emphasis is on equal eligibility and absence of discrimination. What Article 16 contemplates is that a citizen should not be denied the equality of opportunity but it does not mean that positively he should be afforded certain facilities for that particular procedure must necessarily be followed in making an appointment. If there is any dental of opportunity, It may amount to an infringement of Article 16 but this article does not cast a duty on the appointing authorities that the citizens should be afforded particular facilities." 6. We are noticing that the candidates appearing in examinations conducted by the State or the Universities now have a tendency to claim that date fixed for certain examinations by the Universities or State may be changed so that they may be able to appear in as many examinations as possible conducted by the State or other recruiting agencies and also in their academic examination to be held by the Universities. WE have noticed that the University authorities had a number of time to succumb to the pressure of the students' unions and the dates for academic examinations are postponed so that the students may take chance in examinations conducted by the State for recruitment in administrative and similar services. The result is well-known that the regular examinations of the universities are delayed and postponed for no fault of such students who are appearing in their regular academic examinations only. The tendency and the action by such students' unions disturb the entire academic environment Many a times in order to get the examinations postponed strikes etc are called by the students, with the result that the academic sessions are delayed. These observations made be us in this judgment may not be essential and necessary for decision of the present writ petition, bat the principle we considered and evolved applies to the examinations conducted by the State recruiting agencies also. The dates for examinations for recruitment and appointments cannot be changed at the instance of candidates to enable them to appear in a number of such examinations. Thus, we are of the considered view that the Chairman of the UPPSC was right and acted legally in declining to change the date of preliminary examination fixed for PCS/Upper Subordinate Service. However, in the present case, it has been stated that the petitioner had made representation to the Chairman, UPPSC, Allahabad for change of date of preliminary examination which is fixed for 20th December, 1992, but no orders have been passed and the same is still pending. In the result, for the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the petition is devoid of merit and calls for no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limini. However, the Chairman, UPPSC, Allahabad may consider the feasilbity of the postponement of the date of examination in question in view of the facts stated in the representation made by the petitioner, and also in view of the recent development regarding situation prevailing in most of the States of the country because of the curfew restrictions etc. 7. Order accordingly. 8. Certified copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the parties on usual payment within 3 days