JUDGMENT : Sambuddha Chakarabarti, J. Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record. 2. The petitioner was working as a Sweeper-cum-Peon on purely temporary basis at the Ruby Park Branch of the State Bank of Mysore. His case is that in the year 2005 there was a talk of absorbing the temporary peons on permanent basis. He had made an application to that effect to the appropriate authority. By a communication dated November 2015 the respondents intimated the petitioner that an interview would be conducted for absorption of temporary peons on permanent basis who are working for more than 240 days continuously in a block period of twelve months any calendar year. The date, time and venue of the interview was intimated to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner appeared at the interview on December 2, 2015. Thereafter, the petitioner alleges that there was a merger of different subsidiary banks of the State Bank of India with the State Bank of India and as a result of that the petitioner's case has not been considered by the respondents. 4. Mr. Pal, the learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that after rendering service for 14-15 years the petitioner has a right to be absorbed if any absorption procedure is to be conducted by the bank authorities. He has also challenged the order of termination dated March 31, 2017 passed by the authorities of the State Bank of Mysore upon compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. Mr. Sinha, the learned advocate for the State Bank of India, submits that a decision was taken to conduct the interview for absorbing the temporary employees and the interview was held pursuant to the said decision. However, the results could not be published as the Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India had directed to keep the process of selection of candidates in abeyance till certain issues were satisfactorily addressed to. In the meantime, all the subsidiary banks of the State Bank of India were merged with the State Bank of India and it was decided that only the permanent employees of the subsidiary banks would be absorbed and the temporary employees would be retrenched upon compliance of the relevant provisions of law. 6. It is not clear from the submission of Mr. Pal which particular grievance he is agitating in this writ petition. 6. It is not clear from the submission of Mr. Pal which particular grievance he is agitating in this writ petition. From the submission it appears that non-selection of the petitioner is a point of grievance. However, from the writ petition it appears that the order of retrenchment has been the subject matter of challenge without seeking for any relief on account of the issue agitated by Mr. Pal. 7. So far as the point of non-selection of the petitioner is concerned, the writ petition is rather silent on it. It is not a case of non-absorbing the petitioner. The erstwhile respondent-bank conducted an interview. The fate of all temporary employees is depending upon the result of the interview. The result of the interview has not been published pursuant to the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission. The petitioner cannot have any grievance on that score. Even if they had published the result and decided not to fill up any of the posts, the petitioner could not have raised any grievance about it. A candidate for a post has no right to appointment. This has been decided long before in the case of Sankarshan Dash v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1612 wherein the Supreme Court had specifically stated that even if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit the successful candidates did not acquire indefeasible right to be appointed or the same cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for appointment and on their selection they do not acquire any legal right to the post. Moreover the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is also under no compulsion to fill up all or any of the posts. 8. The present situation is even very different as the results have not been published pursuant to a direction of the Central Vigilance Commission. Even without that an authority has every right to cancel the examination or not to take any step pursuant to the same. Non-publication of result can at most be said to be equivalent to that. Moreover, the interview was held in December 2015. In 2017 the petitioner cannot come and challenge the decision without raising any dispute before the termination. 9. Non-publication of result can at most be said to be equivalent to that. Moreover, the interview was held in December 2015. In 2017 the petitioner cannot come and challenge the decision without raising any dispute before the termination. 9. This Court was not required to address the issue of non-publication of result for whatever reason as the petitioner has not challenged the same in the writ petition. The writ petition is directed against the order of termination issued by the erstwhile State Bank of Mysore. This has been done, as the respondents say, pursuant to the decision of merger of various subsidiary banks with the main State Bank of India. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same he can definitely press the machinery available under the Industrial Disputes Act into action as the State Bank of Mysore had retrenched the petitioner upon compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. This Court is not going to interfere with the same. 10. Initially the conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act was initiated in Bangalore which had ended in failure. Mr. Pal has no clue whether the petitioner was a party to the same. 11. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. There will be no order as to costs. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis.