1. The writ petitioner on the strength of averments made in the petition seeks following reliefs:- (I) Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashment of the Government order No. 141 -FDD of 2008 dated 16.04.2008 issued by respondent No.1, and the communication bearing No.DC/PD/Adm-IV/525/B/89 dated 17.04.2008 addressed by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 be quashed carrying the endorsement of respondent No. 3 dated 19.04.2008 and of respondent No. 5 dated 26.04.2008; and (II) Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service against the post of Technician-III and to give him the salary and other benefits, without any impediment or obstruction, but also to maintain his seniority at his appropriate place and consider him for further promotions, as and when process for such promotion would be initiated by them. The facts lie in a narrow compass and may be given a closer look, in first instance. 2. The petitioner responded to Notification No. 03 of 2000 dated 27.10.2000 and 02 of 2004 dated 15.04.2004, whereby the State Service Selection Board invited applications from eligible candidates for filling up backlog posts of Technician Grade — III in District cadres and Divisional cadre Kashmir The select list issued vides SSB/Secy/801-03/04 dated 03.12.2004 included the present petitioner under SOC category and he was resultantly appointed vide order No. DC/PD/Admn-1/89 of 2005 dated 22.02.2005 as Technician Grade — III in the pay scale of 3050-4910 in Divisional cadre Kashmir on probation for a period of two years and allotted to S&D Wing Kashmir. The petitioner submitted his joining report in the office of Development Commissioner Power (Kashmir and Jammu) on 28th February 2005. The Chief Engineer System and Operation Wing Kashmir (S&O) vide order No. CE/S&O/53O7-13 dated 01.08.2005 transferred and posted the petitioner in Sub Division 1st. The petitioner was accordingly asked by the Executive Engineer TLCD-II Srinagar, vide his No. TLCD-II/15 of 2005 dated 04.08.2005 to report to the Sub Division 1st. The Administrative Officer Development Commissioner Power vide No. DC/PD/Adm-I/1496-97 dated 28.05.2007 conveyed approval to clearance of probation period of the petitioner in the pay scale of 3050-4910 on his completion of two years service i.e. probation period. The petitioner's Service Book was duly prepared by the competent Authority. The Administrative Officer Development Commissioner Power vide No. DC/PD/Adm-I/1496-97 dated 28.05.2007 conveyed approval to clearance of probation period of the petitioner in the pay scale of 3050-4910 on his completion of two years service i.e. probation period. The petitioner's Service Book was duly prepared by the competent Authority. However, all this was done unmindful of the "corrigendum" issued by the State Service Selection Board vide its No. SSB/Sel/Secy/874/04 dated 16.12.2004 to the select notified vide SSB/Sel/Secy/80-1-03/04 dated 03.12.2004. The State Service Selection Board vide aforesaid corrigendum dated 16.12.2004 informed the Principal Secretary to Government power Development Department, Civil Secretariat Jammu that Shri Javed Ahmad Najar Son of Ghulam Nabi Najar Resident of Rajpora Keller, Pulwama be read instead of Gulzar Ahmad Son of Ghulam Ahmad Resident of Charari-Sharief, Budgam (petitioner herein) figuring at S. No. 1, under SOC category in Divisional cadre Kashmir. The corrigendum was noticed only after Shri Mehmood-Ul-Hassan — respondent No. 6 filed a writ petition registered as SWP 218/2007 dated 13.04.2007 claiming therein that Shri Javed Ahamad Najar shown at S. No. 1, under SoC category in the select list dated 03.12.2004 read with corrigendum dated 16.12.2004, having decided not to take up the job, he -Mehmood-Ul-Hassan in view of his inclusion in the wait list at S.No. 2, was entitled to be appointed as Technician — III under SoC category. The writ petition was disposed off, on 13.04.2007 with the direction to the respondents to proceed in the matter on the lines indicated in the reply and pass appropriate orders regarding the appointment of the petitioner if found eligible and suitable for the post. The writ Court order prompted the respondents to examine the matter and pass order No.PDD/VI/87/98-Tech dated 16th April 2008, whereby the appointment of the petitioner as Technician Grade — III was cancelled and sanction accorded to the appointment of Shri Mehmood-Ul-Hassan as Technician Grade — III against the resultant vacancy. The respondent No.6 submitted his joining report on iyth April 2008 forenoon and was asked to report for duty. 3. The respondent No.6 submitted his joining report on iyth April 2008 forenoon and was asked to report for duty. 3. The petitioner throws challenge to the Government order No. No.PDD/VI/87/98-Tech dated 16th April 2008, whereby his appointment has been cancelled and sanction accorded to the appointment of respondent No.6 on the grounds that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was obligatory on part of the respondents to afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and that such opportunity not having been given to the petitioner, the order was viola live of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside. The petitioner questions the order and authority of respondents to cancel his appointment and claim protection under Article 311 Constitution of India and Section 126 Constitution of J&K. The petitioner insists that in absence of an inquiry contemplated under Rule 33 and 34 (J&K Classification Control and Appeal Rules) 1956, the order impugned in the petition was devoid of any legal force. It is contended that the respondents did not inform the petitioner that his name from the select list was directed to be deleted and replaced by Shri Javid Alimad Najar in terms of corrigendum dated 16th December 2004 and that the petitioner had no opportunity to plead and establish that his deletion or replacement was unwarranted. The petitioner admits to have questioned the Government order dated 16th April 2008 in SWP No. 572/2008. It is however pleaded that the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty granted by the Court in terms of order dated 22nd May 2008 to file a fresh petition. 4. The respondents 1 to 5 oppose the writ petition on the grounds that the petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner has already filed writ petition bearing SWP No.572/2008 on the same facts and on the same grounds as are set out in the writ petition on hand. It is insisted that the impugned order was passed on the basis of order dated -13.04.2007 passed in SWP No.218/2007. The respondents plead that the corrigendum dated 16th December 2004, had gone unnoticed and was examined only after the writ Court order in SWP No. 218/2007 requiring the respondents to pass appropriate orders regarding the appointment of the petitioner — respondent No. 6 in the present petition. The respondents plead that the corrigendum dated 16th December 2004, had gone unnoticed and was examined only after the writ Court order in SWP No. 218/2007 requiring the respondents to pass appropriate orders regarding the appointment of the petitioner — respondent No. 6 in the present petition. It is next urged that as the petitioner has neither challenged corrigendum dated 16.12.2004 in his earlier writ petition (SWP No. 572/2008), nor in the present petition, no relief can be granted in his favour. The respondents deny that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. The respondent No. 6 in his Counter Affidavit filed on 09.12.2009 resists the writ petition on the grounds that the petitioner did not participate in the selection process for appointment of Technician Grade — III in Divisional cadre and was fraudulently shown to have been selected in the select list dated 03.12.2004 and appointed as Technician Grade — 111 on the basis of his name having been so reflected in the select list under SoC category. It is stated that the Service Selection Board Authorities noticing the fraud, issued corrigendum dated 16.12.2004 deleting the petitioner from select list under SOC category and replacing his name by one Shri Javed Ahmad Najar who like respondent No. 6 had participated in the selection process. It is pleaded, that as Shri Javed Ahmad Najar was appointed as Technician Grade—III under SOC category in District cadre Pulwama and had jointed the post on 04.08.2005, the respondent No. 6 approached the official respondents to appoint him under SOC category as Shri Javed Ahmad Najar SOC category could not be selected for two posts i.e. one in District cadre Pulwama and another in Divisional cadre Kashmir and that the respondents No. 6 was the only other candidate who had participated in the selection process and deserved to be appointed on the basis of his merit. It is insisted that as the petitioner's entry in the select list was outcome of fraud and his appointment on the basis of said entry and his continuation in Government service till his appointment was cancelled was also fraudulent, the petitioner was not entitled to protection under Article 311 Constitution of India. It is insisted that as the petitioner's entry in the select list was outcome of fraud and his appointment on the basis of said entry and his continuation in Government service till his appointment was cancelled was also fraudulent, the petitioner was not entitled to protection under Article 311 Constitution of India. The respondent No. 6 making reference to the reply filed by Service Selection Board to the SWP No. 218/2007 filed by him, insists that the petitioner did not appear in the interview and could not have been selected as Technician Grade — III in Divisional cadre under SoC category. It is pleaded that as the petitioner filed another writ petition registered as SWP No. 572/2008 against the same order and on the grounds urged in the present petition and later withdrew the writ petition only because no relief was granted in his favour, the present petition was not maintainable. In his Supplementary Affidavit filed on 24.12.2009 the respondent No. 6 placing reliance on communications No. PDD/VI-W/87/98/7 dated 03.09.2007, DC/PD/Adm-IV Misc-Court/1182 dated 27.11.2007 and SF/N/653O dated 17.11.2007 pleads that the petitioner was no more working as Technician Grade — III in the respondent Department after his appointment was cancelled vide order dated 16.12.2004. 6. I have gone through the pleadings as also record available on the file. I have heard learned Counsel for parties. 7. From the perusal of record on the file and in particular stand taken by the Service Selection Board in reply to the writ petition No. 218/2007 filed by respondent No. 6 it transpires that though the petitioner responded to the advertisement notice No. 02 of 2004 dated 15.04.2004 and was called for interview, he did not appear in the interview and thus did not participate in the selection process for the posts of Technician Grade-III in Divisional cadre and resultantly his performance was not assessed by the Interview Committee/Board. Perusal of the record further indicates that only S/Shri Javed Ahmad Najar, Mehmood-Ul-Hassan (respondent No. 6) and one Nissar Hussain who applied under SoC category appeared in interview and were placed in that order in the merit list prepared by the Interview Committee/Board. Shri Javed Ahmad Najar with 68.71 marks was at the top of the list, Shri Mehmood-Ul-Hassan (respondent No. 6) secured 65.78 marks and was Second in the order of merit, while Shri Nissar Hussain secured 3rd position. Shri Javed Ahmad Najar with 68.71 marks was at the top of the list, Shri Mehmood-Ul-Hassan (respondent No. 6) secured 65.78 marks and was Second in the order of merit, while Shri Nissar Hussain secured 3rd position. Shri Javed Ahmad Najar had also responded to an advertisement notice for filling up the post of Technician Grade — III in District cadre Pulwama, was selected for the post under SoC category and decided to take up the job. The vacancy of Technician Grade — III in Divisional cadre under SoC category was thus to go to Shri Mehmood-Ul-Hassan — respondent No. 6 herein. However, the Service Recruitment Board selected a candidate for Technician Grade—III post in Divisional cadre who had not at all appeared in the interview and had absented himself/stayed away from the selection process. Resultantly petitioner was recommended by the Board vide its communication dated 03.12.2004 for appointment as Technician Grade — III under SoC category in Divisional cadre Kashmir. However. The Board within days after petitioner's name had crept in the select list, for whatever reasons, realised its mistake issued corrigendum dated 16.12.2004 and duly informed the Appointing Authority that the petitioner's name was deleted from the select list and in his place Shri Javed Ahmad Najar who as stated was at the top of the list on the basis of his merit was recommended for appointment as Technician Grade — III in Divisional cadre under SoC category. The Appointing Authority ignored the corrigendum, for whatever reasons and proceeded to act on the select list dated 03.12.2004 and appointed the petitioner as Technician Grade — III in the pay scale of 3050-4910 vide No. DC/PD/Adm-1/89 of 2005 dated 2.02.2005. The petitioner as stated in detail, continued to reap the fruits of inadvertence, mistake or fraud for next three years till the respondent No. 6 having right to claim the post in question approached the respondents with the requests to set right his grievance and later approached this Hon’ble Court with SWP No. 218/2007 disposed off, on 13.04.2007 with the direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders regarding the appointment of the respondent No. 6 in the background of stand taken in their reply to the writ petition. It was on the basis of his performance in the interview and his merit assessed by the Interview Committee/Board that the respondent No. 6 was entitled to be appointed as Technician Grade — III in the Divisional cadre under SoC category once the only candidate having superior merit joined the better job and left the vacancy to be filled up by the respondent No. 6. 8. What emerges from the above discussion is that the petitioner was not at all entitled to be appointed as Technician Grade — III in Divisional cadre Kashmir under Soc category. The question that calls for an answer is whether the selection and consequent appointment made in favour of the petitioner, to which he was not at all entitled, clothes the petitioner with the safeguards and rights available under Article 311 Constitution of India and Section 126 Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. 9. It is well settled law that where an appointee does not possess the basic qualification making him eligible for the appointment and unmindful of his not satisfying the eligibility criteria, appointment is made in his favour such appointment may be cancelled without adherence to the procedure involved in dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a Govt. employee. Same is true where a candidate may fulfil the eligibility criteria but does not participate in the selection process. In case such a candidate is appointed notwithstanding his having stayed away from the selection process, such appointment can be cancelled without following the procedure envisioned by Article 311 Constitution of India, Section 126 Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and the Service Rules, made under the afore-stated Constitutional Provisions. It is not difficult to identify the reasons for said legal proposition. The Constitutional and Statutory guarantees are available to an employee who has been validly appointed to Govt service and is subsequently sought to be removed or reduced in rank on the ground(s) of misconduct attributed to him. On the other hand an appointment contrary to the mandate of Constitution, Statute or Statutory Rules would be void in law and not confer any right on the appointee to hold and continue on the post. On the other hand an appointment contrary to the mandate of Constitution, Statute or Statutory Rules would be void in law and not confer any right on the appointee to hold and continue on the post. The selection and appointment of a candidate as in the present case, who has not participated in the selection process is not only in conflict with the Rules, but violates the mandate of Article 14 and 16 Constitution of India. 10. It is pertinent to point out that the candidates who do not participate in the selection process and the candidates who participate in the selection process constitute two different and distinct classes and by selecting a candidate who has not participated in the Selection process, the Service Selection Board and thereafter the Appointing Authority in effect treated two distinct and unequal classes on equal terms. To put it differently if Service Selection Board accords consideration to a candidates who does not participate in the selection process, alongside the candidates who participate in the selection process the Service Selection Board in effect violates. The spirit of the right to equality and equal protection of laws as also right of equal opportunity to Government employment enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such an appointment would be void without any rights flowing out of it in favour of the appointee. This apart where appointment to any office under State has been cancelled on the ground that the appointment was made in violation of Constitution, Statute or Statutory Rules, the appointee cannot seek a writ of mandamus commanding the Government and its functionaries to allow him to continue for the simple reason that in order to seek such a relief he has to establish a legal right and a corresponding legal duty with which the Government or its functionaries are saddled. Once it is held that a candidate appointed notwithstanding his ineligibility or in violation of Constitution, Statue or Statutory Rules, does not get any legal rights because of such appointment. He cannot be held entitled to get a writ of mandamus directing the Government or its functionaries to allow him to continue in Government service. 11. Once it is held that a candidate appointed notwithstanding his ineligibility or in violation of Constitution, Statue or Statutory Rules, does not get any legal rights because of such appointment. He cannot be held entitled to get a writ of mandamus directing the Government or its functionaries to allow him to continue in Government service. 11. In the present case it is not necessary to delve deep into the circumstances that attributed to inclusion of the petitioner in the select list in question and to see whether the petitioner indulged in any fraud in league with the authorities or said inclusion was outcome of inadvertence or mistake. Whatever the reason for inclusion of petitioner in the select list, the fact remains that there is an element of dishonesty, and deceit on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner very well knew that he had not participated in the selection process and as such had no right to be appointed against the advertised post. Least that was expected of the petitioner, once he received the appointment order, was to inform the respondents that the appointment order was result of oversight, inadvertence or mistake on their part and that as he had not participated in the selection process, he had no right to be appointed against the said post. Every one is expected to be fair, truthful and honest in his dealings and once a person is conscious that whatever has come to his way is not rightly due to him, he is not to wait for a judicial verdict to remind him that he should shun such benefit and inform the concerned that the benefit is not due to him. Any one not fair, honest and truthful can not turn around to say that he should have been heard before what was not due to him to his knowledge was taken away. In the said back ground the petitioner can not be heard saying that the order impugned in the petition has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice nor can petitioner insist that the respondents ought to have initiated departmental proceedings before cancellation of his appointment order. 12. For the reasons discussed the writ petition is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed along with CMP(s)if any.