D. S. SINHA, S. N. SRIVASTAVA, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, and Sri Sandeep Mookerji, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P. , representing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, at length and in detail. ( 2 ) THE petitioner appeared in the examination for recruitment to 80 posts of Assistant Engineer in the general category and 61 posts for reserved category, held in the year 1995 pursuant to the advertisement issued for the purpose in June, 1991. The result of the examination was declared on 24th August, 1996. The petitioner was not successful. ( 3 ) IN the year 1994, the State Government decided to hold a special recruitment for appointment on 144 posts of Assistant Engineers in the reserved category, out of which 127 were reserved for scheduled Castes and 17 were reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes. It, therefore, sent a requisition to the U. P. Public Service Commission vide its communication dated 19th September. 1994, for holding the selection for recruitment. ( 4 ) IN response to the requisition of the State Government, the Commission issued advertisement on 23rd June, 1995. It issued notification on 24th November, 1995, notifying the dates of examination to be 16th, 17th and 18th December, 1995. ( 5 ) UPON completion of the process of selection, the Commission declared the result on 24th august, 1996. 104 candidates were selected. ( 6 ) THE select-list was submitted to the Government by the Commission on 17th December, 1996. Out of the select-list of 104 candidates, 86 candidates, indisputably, have been duly appointed and are working. ( 7 ) INSTANT petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the legality of the selection held for recruitment to 144 posts reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in pursuance of the requisition from the Government vide its letter dated 19th September, 1994. ( 8 ) THE writ petition was filed on 12th December, 1995. The Court did not grant any interim order either staying the selections or appointments in pursuance of the selection. ( 9 ) INITIALLY, the petitioner did not implead any of the 104 candidates selected in the recruitment. Later on, he impleaded only two candidates. ( 8 ) THE writ petition was filed on 12th December, 1995. The Court did not grant any interim order either staying the selections or appointments in pursuance of the selection. ( 9 ) INITIALLY, the petitioner did not implead any of the 104 candidates selected in the recruitment. Later on, he impleaded only two candidates. Notices were sent to these candidates but they have come back with the endorsement "not Known". Thus, these candidates are unserved. No effort has been made by the petitioner to serve them again. ( 10 ) AS noticed earlier, out of 104 selected candidates, 86 have already been appointed and are serving. 84 candidates, who have already been appointed and are serving, have not been impleaded and the two who have been Impleaded have not been served. . It cannot be disputed that if the selection is interfered with by this Court in any manner, the candidates who have been selected and the 86 candidates who have been appointed and have been serving for about 6 years by now will be adversely affected. Thus, in the absence of these candidates, the Court would not be justified in interfering with the selection in any manner. Any interference would be violative of the principles of natural justice and result in miscarriage of Justice qua the selected and appointed candidates. ( 11 ) OTHERWISE also, in the opinion of the Court, the petitioner does not have any legally cognizable and judicially enforceable right to question the impugned selection. He has failed to demonstrate the existence of any right which may have been invaded by the Impugned selection. ( 12 ) THERE is another aspect, namely, futility of the exercise of special and extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court is of the opinion that adjudication of the controversy raised in the petition will serve no purpose except academic exercise of no consequence. Even if the Impugned selection is set aside, the petitioner cannot get appointment automatically. If any selection is held in the event of impugned selection being set aside, the petitioner would be Ineligible for selection on the ground of age. Today, admittedly, the petitioner is about 39 years while maximum age for entry into the service of the state of U. P. Is 35 years. ( 13 ) ALL told, the petition is wholly misconceived and frivolous. Today, admittedly, the petitioner is about 39 years while maximum age for entry into the service of the state of U. P. Is 35 years. ( 13 ) ALL told, the petition is wholly misconceived and frivolous. It deserves to be dismissed with costs. ( 14 ) IN the result, the petition is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs. 3,000 to be paid to the state Government within three months from today. .