ORDER : Aggrieved by the order dated 05.10.2016, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) in application No.1187/2007 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the application and the applicant has filed the instant writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The State Government issued a notification calling for applications from eligible candidates for the post of teachers in Raichur district in the year 1999. The petitioner and the 5th respondent both finding themselves eligible applied for the post of teacher. Pursuant to the scrutiny of the applications, both the petitioner and the 5th respondent were found to be eligible for appointment to the post of teacher and it transpires that petitioner’s name was found in the provisional select list at Sl.No.104. Thereafter, it is the claim of the petitioner that he was called to appear before the authorities before publication of final select list on 30.07.2003 with all the original documents which was for document verification. Pursuant to the publication of the provisional select list, the government notified the final select list of teachers eligible for appointment. In the said list, the name of the petitioner was not found. The petitioner gave a representation to the Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Raichur, on 16.10.2003 seeking information as to what happened to the selection of the petitioner and why his original documents were not returned. No reply was given to the representation of the petitioner and in those circumstances, the petitioner caused a legal notice seeking appointment and also stating that persons who were less in percentage than the petitioner were appointed and the petitioners name despite being in the provisional select list was not found in the final select list. When no reply was given, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in which the appointee 5th respondent was not a party. The applicant has sought for following prayer before the Tribunal in application No.1187/2007. 1. Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to give the applicant the order of appointment for the post of teacher in Raichur District for which the applicant was selected. 2. Issue such other writ or order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. The State Government filed its objection and contested the matter. 2. Issue such other writ or order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. The State Government filed its objection and contested the matter. Considering the entire issue in detail dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by the following observations. “5. There is no dispute regarding the fact that applicant was at Sl.No.104 in the provisional select list his marks were indicated as 53.58% and a person listed below him in said provisional select list has been selected. The contention advanced on behalf of applicant is that though he was higher in the list, a candidate junior to him in the said list has been selected. It is seen that the exercise of preparing the provisional list was taken up in context of generic instruction of government pursuant to Supreme Court holding rural weightage provision in selection rules as ultravirus of constitution. We find merit in simple contention advanced by respondents is that applicant was placed higher in the provisional select list on the basis of wrong computation of his marks which were corrected after verification of originals and before publishing the final select list. The applicant was informed that percentage of applicant is less than the cut off percentage and hence he has not been selected vide impugned endorsement dated 28.10.2005. In the grounds urged for relief, it is not at all the case of applicant that he has secured higher marks and percentage than the last person to whom appointment has been offered. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the decision of respondents is arbitrary and less meritorious candidates have been selected. We do not find any grounds to interfere in the matter.” 4. Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. It is for the first time, the petitioner has arrayed the appointee namely the 5th respondent as party in the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent and Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is more meritorious than the appointee namely the 5th respondent and his name was found in the provisional select list. 5. Heard Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent and Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is more meritorious than the appointee namely the 5th respondent and his name was found in the provisional select list. He was called for verification of original documents and on its verification, the State Government took the documents which according to the petitioner was for the purpose of selection of his candidature. The State Government would submit that while preparing the provisional select list, a bonafide mistake occurred with regard to calculation of marks of the petitioner which made the petitioner figure in the provisional select list and on further verification and correct calculation of average of the percentage of marks obtained by the petitioner, took him out of the final select list. 7. The counsel for the 5th respondent would contend that the petitioner was more meritorious hence, he was selected and appointed to the post of teacher and he has been working in that post for the last 15 years and his appointment on the imaginary pretext of the petitioner should not be disturbed. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the pleadings and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire papers before us. 9. It is no doubt true that the name of the petitioner herein figured in the provisional select list at Sl.No.104, his name was not found in the final select list but the name of the 5th respondent had come in. The contention of the State Government is that there was a mistake in the calculation of marks of the petitioner, which led to his name being figured in the provisional select list. In order to satisfy ourselves, we directed the learned Addl. Government Advocate to file the methodology adopted for calculation of marks that it led to the name of the petitioner being figured in the provisional select list and the calculation which led to the name of the petitioner being taken away in the final select list. 10. The learned Addl. Government Advocate has filed a memo on 06.02.2020 indicating the marks secured by the petitioner and the 5th respondent and the method by which it is calculated. 10. The learned Addl. Government Advocate has filed a memo on 06.02.2020 indicating the marks secured by the petitioner and the 5th respondent and the method by which it is calculated. The marks secured by both the petitioner and the 5th respondent is tabulated herein: Respondent No.5 Sri Suresh Petitioner Sri Appasaheb Qualification Marks Secured Percentage Qualification Marks Secured Percentage SSLC for maximum 600 marks 319 53.1666 SSLC for maximum 700 marks 332 47.4200 319 53.1666 332 47.4200 PUC for maximum 600 marks 324 54.0000 T.C.H.1st year for maximum 800 marks 434 54.2500 T.C.H. IInd year for maximum 800 marks 473 59.125 Total 324 54.0000 907 56.6875 Merit score SSLC+ PUC 53.1666 + 54.0000/2 = 53.5833 SSLC + TCH 47.4200 + 56.6875/2 = 52.05375 52.05375 The details of the marks secured by the petitioner and respondent No.5 and the merit score is as follows: 11. In terms of the aforeextracted tabulation of marks of the petitioner is juxtaposed with that of the 5th respondent, the marks secured by the 5th respondent is 53.5833 and the marks secured by the petitioner is 52.05375. Thus, on a bare reading of the tabulation, it is clear that the 5th respondent was more meritorious than the petitioner. 12. The methodology adopted for calculation of marks as per regulation dated 20.12.2001 which was in force when the calculation of marks of the petitioner and the 5th respondent took place. In terms of the circular, it is seen that calculation of marks is the marks secured in the SSLC or equivalent exams plus adding up the marks secured in the PUC or TCH and taking an average marks indicated in the tabular column, is in consonance with the circular issued for such tabulation. 13. Thus, we find no error whatsoever in the calculation of marks and placing the 5th respondent higher in merit than the petitioner. The plea of the petitioner that the calculation of marks is erroneous is unacceptable to us. On a plain reading of the tabulation, the petitioner is lower in merit than that of the 5th respondent. 14. The final select list was issued in the year 2003 and the name of the petitioner was in the provisional select list. It is settled law that a person whose name figures in the select list either provisional or final will have no right to get appointment. 15. 14. The final select list was issued in the year 2003 and the name of the petitioner was in the provisional select list. It is settled law that a person whose name figures in the select list either provisional or final will have no right to get appointment. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Balu and Another vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 479 has held as follows: “12. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. A person does not acquire a legal right to be appointed only because his name appears in the select list. (See Pitta Naveen Kumar v. Raja Narasaiah Zangitireported in (2006) 10 SCC 261 ) The State as an employer has a right to fill up all the posts or not to fill them up. Unless a discrimination is made in regard to the filling up of the vacancies or an arbitrariness is committed, the candidate concerned will have no legal right for obtaining a writ of or in the nature of mandamus. (See Batiarani Gramiya Bank v. Pallab Kumarreported in (2004) 9 SCC 100 .) In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 , a Constitution Bench of this Court held: (SCC pp. 5051, para 7) “7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the license of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bonafide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.” 13. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bonafide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.” 13. In State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220 , this Court held: (SCC p.226, paras 1011) “10. … The mere fact that a candidate’s name appears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed. Indeed, if the State Government while making the selection for appointment had departed from the ranking given in the list, there would have been a legitimate grievance on the ground that the State Government had departed from the rules in this respect. ….. 11. It must be remembered that the petition is for a mandamus. This Court has pointed out in Rai Shivendra Bahadur (Dr.) v. Nalanda College reported in AIR 1962 SC 1210 , that in order that mandamus may issue to compel an authority to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on that authority and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. Since there is no legal duty on the State Government to appoint all the 15 persons who are in the list and the petitioners have no legal right under the rules to enforce its performance the petition is clearly misconceived.” 14. In Pitta Naveen Kumar v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti this Court held: (SCC p. 273, para 32) “32. … A candidate does not have any legal right to be appointed. He in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India has only a right to be considered therefore. Consideration of the case of an individual candidate although ordinarily is required to be made in terms of the extant rules but strict adherence thereto would be necessary in a case where the rules operate only to the disadvantage of the candidates concerned and not otherwise.” 15. In State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Chopra reported in (2007) 8 SCC 161 , this Court held (SCC pp.164-65, paras 9 and 11) “9. Recruitment for teachers in the State of Rajasthan is admittedly governed by the statutory rules. In State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Chopra reported in (2007) 8 SCC 161 , this Court held (SCC pp.164-65, paras 9 and 11) “9. Recruitment for teachers in the State of Rajasthan is admittedly governed by the statutory rules. All recruitments, therefore, are required to be made in terms thereof. Although Rule 9 (3) of the Rules does not specifically provide for the period for which the merit list shall remain valid but the intent of the legislature is absolutely clear as vacancies have to be determined only once in a year. Vacancies which arose in the subsequent years could be filled up from the select list prepared in the previous year and not in other manner. Even otherwise, in absence of any rule, ordinary period of validity of select list should be one year. In State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra this Court opined: (SCC p.564, para 9) ‘9. In the aforementioned situation, in our opinion, he did not have any legal right to be appointed. Life of a panel, it is well known, remains valid for a year. Once it lapses, unless an appropriate order is issued by the State, no appointment can be made out of the said panel.’ It was further held: (Amrendra Kumar case, SCC p.565, para 13) ‘13. The decisions noticed hereinbefore are authorities for the proposition that even the wait list must be acted upon having regard to the terms of the advertisement and in any event cannot remain operative beyond the prescribed period.’ 11. It is well-settled principle of law that even selected candidates do not have legal right in this behalf. (See Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India and Asha Kaul v. State of J. & K.)” 16. In terms of the aforeextracted judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has in unequivocal terms held that a person’s name in the provisional select list or even in the final select list, will not give him any indefeasible right to get appointed. In terms of law declared by the Apex Court, the petitioner whose name figured in the provisional select list has no right to claim that he should be appointed. Apart from this, we have also examined the comparative merit and the way in which the calculation and tabulation is done and find no arbitrariness in the entire process. In terms of law declared by the Apex Court, the petitioner whose name figured in the provisional select list has no right to claim that he should be appointed. Apart from this, we have also examined the comparative merit and the way in which the calculation and tabulation is done and find no arbitrariness in the entire process. Thus, we find no error in the order of the Tribunal that warrants interference in this petition. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.