ORDER : The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs: (a) Direct the respondent No. 1 to appoint the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) in the H.P. University Department of Evening Studies under un­reserved (Ex-Servicemen) category where the post of same is lying vacant; (b) Direct the respondent University to declare the waiting list of the candidates who appeared in the interview of the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) under un­reserved (Ex-Servicemen) category in the H.P. University, Regional Centre, Dharamshala and HP University Department of Evening Studies held on 10.1.2022; (c) The appointment of the respondent No. 3 be quashed and set aside as he has already availed the Ex-Servicemen Quota for the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) in college cadre; (d) That the respondent University be directed to cancel the advertisement of Assistant Professor (Hindi) in the H.P. University Department of Evening Studies under wards of Ex-Servicemen quota whereas the petitioner is fully eligible candidate under the Ex­Servicemen quota for the said post.” 2. The petitioner had applied against the advertisement dated 30.12.2019 for the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) under un­reserved Ex­Servicemen category in H.P. University Department of Evening Studies and in HP University Regional Centre Dharamshala. In addition to the petitioner, one Dr. Sanjeev Kumar also applied for the post in question. 3. The University notified the policy and programme for appointment of Assistant Professor in the University under point No. 4, which is as under: “(i) For one vacancy maximum of 15 (fifteen) candidates shall be invited. (ii) Interview be held if at least 5 (five) eligible applications have been received and 3 (three) shortlisted candidates report for the interview.” 4. The respondent­University scrutinized the applications of both the aforesaid candidates and conducted interview for both the posts on 10.1.2022. On the basis of such interview, name of only Dr. Sanjeev Kumar was recommended by the selection committee for both the institutes i.e. Department of Evening Studies and HPU Regional Centre at Dharamshala. 5. Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, thereafter, joined the post of Assistant Registrar (Hindi) under general Ex­Servicemen category at Regional Centre Dharamshala, whereas the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) in the department of Evening Studies was decided to be re­advertised. 6. 5. Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, thereafter, joined the post of Assistant Registrar (Hindi) under general Ex­Servicemen category at Regional Centre Dharamshala, whereas the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) in the department of Evening Studies was decided to be re­advertised. 6. Now, the case of the petitioner is that since the post in question is lying vacant, a direction be issued to the respondent-University to fill up the same as the petitioner is duly qualified and eligible. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record. 8. At the outset, we find the instant petition to be clearly mis­conceived and not maintainable for the reasons that a person by merely applying for a particular post is not entitled for appointment. Eligibility and entitlement are entirely two different things. Merely eligibility does not give rise to entitlement as a matter of right for being appointed. 9. It is settled position of law that writ of mandamus and/or certiorari can only be filed by a person for enforcement of his right under the law. Merely by applying for the post or being eligible would not create any right in favour of the applicant. Equally settled is the proposition that mere existence of vacancy does not give a legal right to the candidate to be selected for appointment. Since, the petitioner fails to disclose any infraction or infringement of his right, therefore, the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine. 10. A constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Shankarsan Dash versus Union of India”, 1991 (3) SCC 47 has held that the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and even on their selection, such candidate do not acquire any right to the post. It would be apt to reproduce para­7 of the judgment (supra), which reads as under: “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. 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 licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide 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. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and Others, [1974] 1 SCR 165; Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana and Others, [1986] 4 SCC 268 and Jitendra Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, [1985] 1 SCR 899.” 11. Here as observed above, the petitioner has not been recommended for selection and therefore, cannot claim infringement or violation of his rights. 12. Consequently, the petition is misconceived and accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.