JUDGMENT Dilip Gupta, J. In the writ proceeding, which was filed before the learned Single Judge in September 2013, the following reliefs were sought: - "A. Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to make recruitment on the post of Pharmacists strictly in accordance with Rules 14 and 15 of the U.P. Pharmacists Service Rules, 1980. B. Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to decide the representation dated 02.08.2013 of the petitioner." 2. From the records it appears that the petitioner submitted a representation on 2 August 2013 complaining that in the selection process of 2007, he had submitted an application which was removed. The learned Single Judge held that as regards prayer clause (A) it was but trite in law that no authority can proceed to make recruitment except in accordance with law and in the absence of anything to show that the Rules are not being followed, there was no justification to issue a writ of mandamus as prayed. As regard prayer clause (B), the learned Single Judge held that the representation was not of a statutory character and in the absence of a public duty mandamus could not be issued. 3. Having regard to the nature of reliefs which were claimed in the petition, we see no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appellant has not shown any legal right for the enforcement of which he has come to the Court. Moreover, the representation of 2 August 2013 pertains to a situation which had taken place in 2007 and hence, no useful purpose would be served by directing the representation to be decided at such a belated stage. 4. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.