JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This intra court appeal is barred by 63 days. 3. On due consideration, since cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal (C.M. Application No. 153815 of 2019) is satisfactory, therefore, we allow C.M. Application No. 153815 of 2019 and condone the delay in filing the present appeal. 4. The writ petition, challenging the order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the respondent No. 3 and also prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the appellant/writ petitioner for selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu Language) in District Barabanki, has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 19.09.2019, on the ground that the writ petitioner/appellant got lesser marks from the last qualified persons, therefore, he has not been selected. It has further been observed by the learned Writ Court that third counselling was not conducted for the general category. 5. The relevant para of the impugned order dated 19.09.2019 reads as under:-- "After perusal of the order impugned, specially paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 8, I do not find that any error has been committed by the District Basic Education Office while passing the impugned order. I have also perused Annexure 10, which is the 'Release' of the third counselling. The third counselling was not conducted for the general category and in the note of the said 'Release', it was specifically mentioned that the candidates who has participated in the third counselling cannot have a right for the selection and the selection will be subject to the merit list. Merely the vacancy available with the Government cannot have a ground for issuing the mandamus for filling up the vacancy. Whether the vacant post will be filled up or not and what were the requirements for filling up the said post, it is the prerogative of the Government and merely a candidate who has participated in the selection process and not qualified, cannot be a legal right for claiming the appointment. The petitioner has participated in the selection process and declared unsuccessful. Therefore, she has no right to claim the appointment." 6. The petitioner has participated in the selection process and declared unsuccessful. Therefore, she has no right to claim the appointment." 6. Considering the aforesaid so also the fact that the writ petitioner, who had participated in the selection and declared unsuccessful, cannot claim appointment as a matter of right nor this Court can issue any direction to fill up all the post, which is lying with the State Government, we are of the view that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the learned Writ Court. The present special appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.