K. RAMAMOORTHY ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner was sent by the employment exchange to the first respondent on the 5th of September, 1987 and an offer of appointment was given to the petitioner as Junior Fitter giving the terms and conditions of appointment. The petitioner had accepted the offer. According to the petitioner, once the offer of appointment had been accepted by the petitioner, the process of appointment is complete and the petitioner must have been taken on duty and that was refused. Therefore, the petitioner had approached this Court. ( 2 ) THE respondents had explained as to how the respondents could not proceed further pursuant to the offer of appointment. On the 17th of February, 1988, the Assistant Administrative Officer of the petitioner wrote to the Assistant Employment Officer, Delhi stating:- "please refer to your letter No. ECX/12/87/548 dated 10. 2. 88 regarding submission of result sheet of the selected candidates. In this connection, this is to inform you that consequent upon conversion of Overseas Communications Service in Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , recruitment rules/service conditions are being formulated by our Corporate Office viz. Office of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, VSNL, Fort, Bombay. We have received orders from our Corporate Office not to make any such recruitment. Hence, the selected candidates could not be appointed so far. However, we are making our efforts to seek permission from our Corporate Office for filling up the vacancies of Junior Fitters and result of the selected candidates will be intimated to you in case we receive the permission for filling up the post from our office in due course. Inconvenience caused in the matter is highly regretted. " ( 3 ) ON the 7th of October, 1988, the General Manager of the first respondent the second respondent, wrote to the counsel for the petitioner, who issued the notice dated 28th of September,. 1988, explaining the position as to why the petitioner could not be taken on duty. The same reads as under: Please refer to your notice dated 28. 9. 88 regarding Shri Hari Om Dhingra. We agree with the position stated in your notice from para 1 to 4. There is no doubt that shri hari om dhingra was offered the post of Jr. fitter and he completed all the formalities, but in the meantime we received a ban order from our Corporate Office viz. 9. 88 regarding Shri Hari Om Dhingra. We agree with the position stated in your notice from para 1 to 4. There is no doubt that shri hari om dhingra was offered the post of Jr. fitter and he completed all the formalities, but in the meantime we received a ban order from our Corporate Office viz. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Bombay, therefore, we were not in a position to take Shri Hari Om Dhingra on duty and as such he was not given any formalappointment order. As Shri Dhingra has not performed duty on any day the question of payment of dues to Shri Hari Om Dhingra does not arise. Informatively, it is also stated that due to closure of our Srinagar Branch, it is necessary to absorb- the employees on the roll of that branch in other VSNLlocations. " The respondents had given valid reasons for not giving duty to the petitioner pursuant to the order of appointment. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Shyam Babu, submitted that the respondents could not proceed on the basis of offer of appointment because of the events happened subsequent to the issue of offer of appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Kishan Saini, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in "smt. Sushma Gosain and Others Vs. Union of India and Others", AIR 1989 SC 1976 , submitted that whatever happened subsequent to the order of appointment or offer of appointment would not affect the right of the-petitioner to get the appointment. The facts which were before the Supreme Court were entirely different and the ratio laid down therein would not apply to the facts of this case. That was the case for compassionate appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Kishan Saini, also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in "prem Prakash etc. Vs. Union of India and Others", AIR 1984 SC 1831 = 1984 Lab. 1c 1448. That was a case where appointment to the judicial service was to be made and there was a quota fixed for a particular category and the grievance by the petitioner before the Supreme Court was that he had been declared successful, and therefore, in the selection he must have been included for appointment. 1c 1448. That was a case where appointment to the judicial service was to be made and there was a quota fixed for a particular category and the grievance by the petitioner before the Supreme Court was that he had been declared successful, and therefore, in the selection he must have been included for appointment. The answer given by the Supreme Court observed:- "once a person is declared successful according to the merit list of selected candidates which is based on the declared number of vacancies the appointing authority has the responsibility to appoint him even if the number of the vacancies undergoes a change after his name has been included in the list of selected candidates. Thus where selected candidates are awaiting appointment recruitment should either be postponed till all the selected candidates are accommodated or alternatively intake for the next recruitment reduced by the number of candidates already awaiting appointment and the candidates awaiting appointment from a fresh list from the subsequent recruitment or examination. i am unable to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court would have any relevance to the present case. ( 4 ) THE petitioner is invoking Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I do not find any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety in the action of the respondents. In the instant case. the respondents had given explanation as to why they could not accommodate the petitioner. In my view, the petitioner cannot claim a right of employment on the premise that he had been given an offer of appointment. He does not get any right to get employment. When the respondents had acted on valid grounds, I am not able to appreciate the submissions on behalf of the petitioner. In my view, the petitioner has not suffered any legal injury. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. ( 5 ) THERE shall be no orders as to costs.