Honble SHETHNA, J.—Petitioner has prayed in this petition that the respondent No. 1 be directed to create ex-cadre posts in Faculty of Commerce of respondent No. 2 under Section 11(1) and 11(13) to 11(14) of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for appointment) Act, 1974 (for short the Act), against the year 1992 or in the alternative against the year 1993. It is further prayed that the respondent No. 2 be directed to promote the petitioner on the post with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits. Thus, the petitioners claim is that a writ of mandamus be issued against the respondents not only to create ex-cadre post in the Faculty of Commerce of the respondent No. 2 University but also claimed that he may be promoted with effect from 1992 or in any case from 1993 on the post in the Faculty of Commerce as provided under Section 11(1) and Section 11(13) to 11(14) of the Act and to grant him consequential benefits with retrospective effect. (2). Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Bhoot vehemently submitted that the respondents deliberately delayed the hearing of this petition and got Section 11 deleted from the Act, firstly by Ordinance which was issued on 27.12.1996 and later on by the Act on 15.10.1997. Though, on 14.5.1997 Hon. P.P. Naolekar, J. specifically ordered that if no written is filed within the time granted, then the right of respondents to file written will be forfeited. Therefore, he submits that preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that no relief can be granted by this Court in view of the fact that Section 11 does not remain in the Statute anymore is only unsustainable and it should be overruled. (3). Mr. Bhoot also submitted that merely because section 11 of the Act has been subsequently deleted during the pendency of final disposal of this petition it would not disentitle the petitioner to claim the benefits under Section 11 of the Act as the grievance of the petitioner is for the year 1992 and 1993 and at the time that Section was very much in the Statute. He submitted that the matters have to be decided as per the law prevalent at the relevant point of time, for this he wanted sometime in the beginning to substantiate his submission with the Supreme Court judgment which was not with him. He submitted that the matters have to be decided as per the law prevalent at the relevant point of time, for this he wanted sometime in the beginning to substantiate his submission with the Supreme Court judgment which was not with him. However, the request was refused. Thereafter learned counsel Shri Bhoot addressed this Court on the maintainability of the writ petition. While addressing this Court on the point of maintainability of the petition, Mr. Bhoot has taken the Court through the entire petition as well as annexures and reply filed by the respondents. He also submitted that petitioner has sufferred a grave injustice as he has been singledout whereas persons similarly situated have been extended the benefit. His submission was that the action of the respondent No. 2 denying the benefit under Section 11 at the relevant point of time is in clear violation of principle of natural justice and in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. (4). Law on mandamus is well settled. No person can claim as a matter of right to have any relief from the Court until and unless he is able to satisfy that his fundamental right guaranteed under provisions of the Constitution has been violated. Coming to the prayer in this petition, it is clear that the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents firstly to create ex-cadre post in the Faculty of Commernce of respondent No.2 University, that too is under the provision of Section 11 of the Act which has already been deleted from the Statute. Thus, without going into the merits of the case, this petition can be straightway dismissed only on the short point that no such writ of mandamus can be issued particularly when Section 11 under which a relief has been prayed stands deleted. (5). In view of the above, this petition is dismissed only on the aforesaid ground without going into the merits of the case with no order as to cost.