S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) ALTHOUGH the pleadings and documents in this case run into hundreds of pages and the matter underwent number of adjournments, in our considered opinion the Us brought before this Court will not detain us for long. We say this because, the whole case of the petitioner s claim is built upon an order made by a learned single Judge of this Court dated 27-11-1989 in WP No. 14308 of 1989. At the threshold, the background facts be noted briefly as under: ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as an ldc by the Chief Judge on 23-8-1986 against a vacancy caused on account of the promotion of the earlier incumbent of that post under Rule 16 of the A. P. Judicial ministerial Service Rules (the Rules, for brevity ). Subsequently, when the learned chief Judge transferred the petitioner by proceedings dated 30-6-1987, the petitioner was shown to be appointed as an LDC, in a leave vacancy. It appears that the petitioner did not assail that part of the transfer order where he was shown to be appointed in a leave vacancy. Be that as it may, then came the proceedings of the Chief judge dated 5-10-1987 terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that the incumbent of the post has returned from leave. Against the said action of the learned Chief Judge, the petitioner filed WP no. 17595 of 1987 and the same was dismissed by the High Court on 15-6-1988. Against the said order of the learned single judge, WA No. 1184 of 1988 was filed and the same was also dismissed by order dated 9-8-1988. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner submitted an appeal to the High court on administrative side seeking intervention of the High Court. The High court by its order dated 19-4-1989 while dismissing the appeal directed the learned chief Judge to consider the petitioner s case against any future vacancy. The petitioner filed WP No. 14308 of 1989 complaining that the direction of the High Court was not carried out by the learned Chief Judge. The writ petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 27-11-1989. The petitioner filed WP No. 14308 of 1989 complaining that the direction of the High Court was not carried out by the learned Chief Judge. The writ petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 27-11-1989. The operative portion of the order reads :"in this matter also the petitioner has filed an application 27-4-1989 bringing to the notice of the Chief Judge that his case may be considered against the existing vacancies and that is still pending before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court. It is therefore directed that the learned single Judge, City Civil Court may consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the observations made by the High Court within six weeks from today and pass appropriate orders. " ( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY in the year 1990, the petitioner filed another writ petition being wp No. 17118 of 1990 complaining that in disobedience to the direction of the High court in WP No. 14308 of 1989, the learned chief Judge has made several appointments to the posts of LDCs, and seeking a direction to the learned Chief Judge to consider the case of the petitioner forthwith against the existing vacancies in terms of the direction issued by the High Court on administrative side on 19-4-1989. That writ petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this court by order dated 27-8-1991 with the following directions:"having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I direct the 1 st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and appoint him in the next vacancies that may arise in the category of LDCs. , in his unit without reference to calling for applications from employment exchange. "the learned single Judge while doing so held". . . . . . . . . . . IN my opinion, when once the vacancies arose due to the creation of the new Court designated as special Court to try CBI cases, the first respondent was bound to consider the case of the petitioner and appoint him as LDC in terms of the order of this Court on the administrative side as well as in terms of the order of Sardar Ali Khan, J. , in WP no. 14308 of 1989. . . 14308 of 1989. . . " ( 4 ) WE have perused the order made by the learned single Judge of this Court in wp No. 14308 of 1989. Nowhere in the said order, the learned single Judge has directed the learned Chief Judge to appoint the petitioner as LDC. On the other hand, the learned Judge has only observed that the learned Chief Judge may consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the observations made by the High Court in its order dated 19-4-1989. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition complaining that the direction issued by the High Court in WP No. 17118 of 1990 is again disobeyed and for a direction to the respondent to appoint the petitioner as ldc/examiner/reader in the existing available vacancy. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties for considerable time, we do not find any existing enforceable right in the petitioner to seek a writ of mandamus to the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad to appoint the petitioner either as ldc or Examiner or Reader in the existing available vacancies. The earlier appointment of the petitioner was terminated by proceedings dated 5-10-1987 which has become final. Thereafter, if the petitioner wants to compete for appointment to any post in the establishment of the Chief Judge, he should necessarily complete alongwith other eligible candidates. It is not the case of the petitioner that after 5-10-1987, he made any application to the learned Chief judge in response to any employment notification calling for applications for appointment to any post and that his application was illegally rejected. The plank of the claim of the petitioner is the judgment made by this Court essentially in WP no. 14308 of 1989. As already pointed out supra, the judgment in the said writ petition does not direct the learned Chief Judge to appoint the petitioner to the post of LDC or any other post. The petitioner has no vested right to claim appointment to any public post as a matter of right. What Articles 14 and 16 guarantee to the citizen is a mere right to be considered. Even that mere right to consider is subject to the applicant possessing the prescribed eligibilities and performing the formalities. The petitioner has no vested right to claim appointment to any public post as a matter of right. What Articles 14 and 16 guarantee to the citizen is a mere right to be considered. Even that mere right to consider is subject to the applicant possessing the prescribed eligibilities and performing the formalities. Since it is not the case of the petitioner that he made any application to the recruiting authority in response to any notification, even consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of LDC does not arise. ( 7 ) BEFORE parting with the case, we should state that though many points are urged, pleading are filed and documents are produced, reference to those pleadings and documents is neither necessary nor relevant to the decision-making in this case. Hence, we have not referred to them. Further, though the petitioner has assailed the appointment of 3rd respondent, we should state that the petitioner has no locus to assail the appointment of 3rd respondent because he was not an applicant for the said post. Even assuming that the appointment of 3rd respondent is irregular and illegal for certain reasons, that does not vest any locus standi in the petitioner to assail the appointment of the 3rd respondent. ( 8 ) IN the result and for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.