JUDGMENT : B. Veerappa, J. - The petitioner without any legally protected right has filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.08.2014 at Annexure-E and issue appointment order to the petitioner for the post of peon. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the respondent has issued the notification dated 29.11.2010 calling upon the applications for the post of peon and other posts in the judicial Department Bidar Unit. There were 13 peon posts. As per the said notification the qualification for the post of peon are (a) must have passed the VII standard examination and (b) must be able to read and write in Kannada. In response to the said notification, the petitioner has filed an application for the post of peon. The respondent called for interview and in the said interview he faired well. On 06.02.2014 the respondent has issued the provisional selection list for the post of peon as per the notification at Annexure-A. In the said provisional list the name of petitioner is shown at Sl.No.7. Though the petitioner belongs to GM, his category was wrongly shown as CATI (Rural). However, in view of his meritorious candidature, the petitioner was hopeful and confident that he would be appointed as peon. 3. The things stood thus, on 17.05.2014 the respondent issued a list of selected candidates. The petitioner was shock and surprised that he was not selected. Only 07 candidates were selected as per the said list and his name was not forthcoming. The same is neither legal nor valid. Bringing the aforesaid facts to the notice of the respondent, the petitioner has filed a representation on 06.08.2014. The same is not considered by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief as sought for. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 5. Sri. Huleppa Heroor, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the inaction on the part of the respondent, in not consideration the representation of the petitioner at Annexure-E and appointing him to the post of peon, is opposed to the probabilities of the case, material on record, and as such arbitrary, unjust, illegal and unsustainable. He would further contend that, though he was selected in the provisional list, but in the final fist his name was not forthcoming. He would further contend that, though he was selected in the provisional list, but in the final fist his name was not forthcoming. The petitioner is a general merit candidate and he should have been appointed as peon. The appointment made by the respondent is contrary to the merit. Therefore, the respondent ought to have considered the representation of the petitioner and pass necessary orders but same has not been done by the respondent. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition as sought for. 6. Per contra, Smt. Arati Patil, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner for writ of mandamus to consider the representation on 06.08.2014 for appointing him as peon is not maintainable. The respondent has no power to consider such representation and pass any orders without calling for notification. Therefore, she sought to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that, the respondent issued notification on 29.11.2010 for the post of peon and other posts and petitioner has applied for the post of peon. There were 13 peon posts in all categories. The name of petitioner was found in the provisional list at Sl.No.7 in Category-I (Rural), though he was belongs to general merit. The final selection list was issued on 17.05.2014 selecting only 07 candidates out of 13 posts. Admittedly, the selection list is not at all challenged by the petitioner before this Court. It is further case of the petitioner that, he is meritorious candidate in the category of G.M., therefore the selection list is to be quashed. What is sought in the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus is only to consider his representation dated 06.08.2014 for issue of appointment order to the post of peon. If such prayer is considered then there is no need to invite the notification in accordance with The Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. Thereby we have to say goodbye all the recruitment rules. Therefore, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued. Admittedly, the petitioner has not made out any legally statutory protected right to issue writ of mandamus. The very prayer sought in the present writ petition is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court, such a litigant cannot be encouraged. 8. Therefore, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued. Admittedly, the petitioner has not made out any legally statutory protected right to issue writ of mandamus. The very prayer sought in the present writ petition is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court, such a litigant cannot be encouraged. 8. In view of the above, the petitioner has not made out any legally protected right to issue a writ of mandamus. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.