JUDGMENT S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J. 1. The present writ petition is filed for a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the Petitioners were selected for the Post of Secondary Grade Teachers on 26.02.2008 subject to verification of the genuineness of migration prior to National Council for Teacher Education Regulation dated 23.08.2010 and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to give the benefit of clause 5 of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulation dated 23.08.2010 to the Petitioners and appoint the Petitioners as Secondary Grade Teacher in the existing vacancies in the Panchayat Union Schools/Municipality Schools/Elementary Schools in Karur District. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners made a submission that the petitioners have passed +2 and thereafter, obtained Diploma in Teacher Education. As per the rules and regulations in force during the year 2002-2004, the petitioners were eligible to be appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in Panchayat Union Schools/Municipality Schools/Elementary Schools. The 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 15.11.2007, directed the Karur Employment Exchange to sponsor the list of eligible candidates for filling up of the vacancies in the post of Secondary Grade Teachers in Panchayat Union and Municipality School in Karur. Pursuant to the above proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent, the names of the Petitioners were sponsored by the Karur Employment Exchange. Accordingly, the Petitioners participated in the process of Certificate Verification on 26.02.2008 for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. The petitioners attended the Certificate Verification and was successful. When the petitioners were expecting the orders of appointment, it was informed to them that they are migrated from other Districts to Karur District. Thus, verification of the migration certificates are required before issuing the order of appointments. 3. The learned Senior Counsel contended that in view of the fact that the appointment of the petitioners were withheld on account of the verification of the migration certificates, they cannot be insisted for passing of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), in view of the exemption granted by the National Council for Teachers Education(NCTE) in regulation dated 23.08.2010. As per the said regulation issued by the National Council for Teachers Education(NCTE) in respect of the selection process commenced prior to the issuance of the said Notification, the authorities cannot insist for passing of Teacher Eligibility Test(TET) for appointment. As per the said regulation issued by the National Council for Teachers Education(NCTE) in respect of the selection process commenced prior to the issuance of the said Notification, the authorities cannot insist for passing of Teacher Eligibility Test(TET) for appointment. Thus, the writ petitioners are also entitled for grant of exemption in view of the regulations issued by the National Council for Teachers Education(NCTE). 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the contentions by stating that the 2nd respondent sponsored the list of candidates for appointment to the Post of Secondary Grade Teachers in proceedings dated 15.11.2007. The process of certificate verification were completed on 26.02.2008 itself, the writ petitioners were not selected and appointed for the Post of Secondary Grade Teacher. Thus, the writ petitioners are not entitled to claim exemption or selection to the Post of Secondary Grade Teacher. This apart, the migration certificates obtained by the writ petitioners are sent for verification by the authorities concerned. However, the writ petitioners were not selected and therefore, the case of the petitioners were not considered for appointment. 5. It is contended that the petitioners are not falling under the exempted category under clause 5 of the National Council for Teachers Education(NCTE) Notification dated 23.08.2010. Clause 5 of the National Council for Teachers Education(NCTE) Notification said that the exempted candidates from Teachers Eligibility Test(TET), if an advertisement was issued by the appropriate Government or local authority or School initiate the process of appointment as Teacher prior to the said Notification i.e., 23.08.2010. It is clearly mentioned in proceedings dated 19.02.2008 that the certificate verification shall not be considered as an interview or as an appointment process. Thus, the petitioners are not falling under the exempted category and therefore, the contentions are devoid of merits. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in vide judgment in the case of Aryavrat Gramin Bank Vs. Vijay Shankar Shukle, (2007) 12 SCC 413 , held that as candidate included in the panel has no right to get a post. Even, if there are any improper appointments made, cannot be cited as a reason to get directions from the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of S.S.Balu Vs. Vijay Shankar Shukle, (2007) 12 SCC 413 , held that as candidate included in the panel has no right to get a post. Even, if there are any improper appointments made, cannot be cited as a reason to get directions from the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of S.S.Balu Vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479 , held that mere inclusion of a person's name in a rank list, there is no right to get appointment and it is open to the Government to fill up or not to fill up such posts. In such cases, no Mandamus will lie against the State for the grant of appointments. 7. This Court is of an opinion that appointment can never be claimed as a matter of right. Mere participation in the process of certificate verification will not confer any right on the candidate to claim selection or appointment. Only in the event of any malpractice or illegality or corrupt activities, if any established by producing adequate materials, then alone the process of selection can be interfered with. 8. In the present case, the petitioners claim selection and appointment based on the certificate verification, this Court is of an opinion that such a claim cannot be considered in view of the fact that even selection will not confer any right and therefore, the writ petitioners cannot seek selection or appointment or exemption pursuant to the regulation issued by the National Council for Teachers Education(NCTE). 9. This apart, the writ petitioners had participated in the process of certificate verification on 26.02.2008. The earlier Writ Petition filed by the writ petitioners in W.P.(MD).No.2412 of 2008, this Court passed an order on 18.03.2008, directing the 1st respondent to consider the name of the petitioner to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the existing vacancies. The said process has to be carried out by the 1st respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner is found to be a non-resident of Karur District by the District Collector, Karur, by passing a speaking order, petitioner is not entitled to get the relief as stated supra, unless and until the said order is set aside. 10. Pursuant to the said order, no further orders are passed by the respondents. It is made clear that the petitioner is found to be a non-resident of Karur District by the District Collector, Karur, by passing a speaking order, petitioner is not entitled to get the relief as stated supra, unless and until the said order is set aside. 10. Pursuant to the said order, no further orders are passed by the respondents. However, the present writ petition was filed on 11th February 2015, after a lapse of about seven years from the date of participation in the certificate verification and from the date of passing of the order by this Court. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of laches also. 11. In view of the fact that the petitioners were not selected for appointment to the Post of Secondary Grade Teachers and the present writ petition was filed after a lapse of about 7 years from the date of participation in the process of certificate verification, this Court is not inclined to consider the relief as such sought for in this writ petition. 12. With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.