Judgment 1. The appellant was appointed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery (A.N.M.) in the year 1990. After few months she was terminated from service. The appellant challenged the said order of termination in C.W.J.C No. 6311 of 1992. On 24.6.1996 the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that no advertisement was made or even some procedure was followed to give due publicity to the vacancy so that interested persons would have applied and also that a select list of the candidates was not prepared on rational basis. The appellant has challenged the said order in this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had received training of Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery and as such there was no need of advertisement or publicity of the vacancy for appointment. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has no leg to stand. Article 16 of the Constitution deals with equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment. It says there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in the matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. The mandate of the Constitution cannot be taken away by any authority. Advertisement inviting application or due publicity of vacancy is necessary in view of the mandate of the Constitution as indicated above. If advertisement/due publicity of vacancy is not made, eligible candidates shall be denied of equal opportunity for employment/appointment. Process of selection is also necessary because by following a process of selection efficient persons are selected for appointment to discharge the duty smoothly. In the instant case, nothing has been brought on the record to show that the mandate of the Constitution or process of selection was followed. Furthermore, training as has been claimed by the appellant is only with respect to eligibility for the post and not for appointment. It is not necessary that all trained persons are to be appointed. Obtaining training does not create vested right for appointment. The aforesaid aspect has been considered in the order impugned. Therefore, on consideration we do not find any error to interfere with the order impugned. 4. Thus, the appeal is dismissed but without cost.