JUDGMENT : R.A. Sharma, J. Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for writ of mandamus commanding the Conservator of Forests, Varanasi, to issue letter of appointment to him, for the post of junior-clerk-cum-typist, in Forest department. 2. Petitioner's case, as set-up in the Writ Petition, is that he applied for appointment before Conservator of Forests to the above post and was called for interview vide letter dated 1-1-1992 and in pursuance thereof he appeared before the selection, board. It has further been stated that by letter dated 21-2-1992 the Petitioner was asked to submit certificates and other necessary papers and in compliance thereof relevant papers were filed before appropriate Authority. The grievance is that after selection no appointment letter was issued to him, incite of the fact that Chief Conservator of Forests had issued directions to that effect, to the Conservator of Forests. 3. Respondents have filed counter-affidavit and the Petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that at the time when selection was under process a complaint dated 26-1-1992 was received regarding use of unfair means; by the Petitioner to get himself appointed as junior clerk, on the basis of which an enquiry was Conducted and its contents were found as correct. It accordingly, decided not to select and appoint the Petitioner who is unsuitable for appointment. The Petitioner, in his rejoinder-affidavit, has disputed the abovementioned complaint and pointed out that the allegations of unfair means are vague and the enquiry was conducted without giving him an opportunity. 5. A person does not get appointment to a post merely because he has applied, for the same” and. has gone through the selection process. It is a settled portion that even if a candidate is selected it is open to the State to refuse appointment if it is found” that the appointment is not in public interest. 6. There was a complaint against the Petitioner before he was finally selected and an enquiry was also conducted and the allegations of the complaint were found as correct. Under these circumstances it was open to the State not to issue appointment letter to the Petitioner, even if he was selected by the selection board. 6. There was a complaint against the Petitioner before he was finally selected and an enquiry was also conducted and the allegations of the complaint were found as correct. Under these circumstances it was open to the State not to issue appointment letter to the Petitioner, even if he was selected by the selection board. While holding enquiry regarding suitability of the candidate principles of natural justice are not attracted because the scope of such enquiry is limited, as its purpose is only to find out about suitability of a Candidate for appointment to the service without casting any stigma on the conduct and character of the candidate. 7. For the reasons given above, the Writ Petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.