N.U. Beg, J.
1. This is a special appeal. The appellant in this special appeal was the petitioner in this Court. It appears that the petitioner was a candidate for the post of apprenticeship in the Collectorate. A preliminary examination was held by the Collectorate for the purpose of recruitment of candidates for this post. In this preliminary test examination the petitioner had appeared.
He was declared successful. He was required to report. He accordingly reported himself on the 60th February, 1958. No work, however, was entrusted to him. He made two representations on 27th June, 1958, and 27th July, 1958. He did not receive any reply. Eventually on 8th September, 1958, he received a communication informing him that the examination in which he had appeared had been cancelled owing to certain irregularities. Thereupon the petitioner came to this Court and moved the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen.
In the writ petition the prayer of the applicant was that a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 8-9-1958, should be granted or a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the respondent, the State of Uttar Pradesh, not to remove the petitioner from his service. His writ petition having been dismissed by a learned single Judge he has filed this special appeal.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant we are of opinion that there is no substance in this appeal. The examination held by the Collectorate was merely a preliminary examination for recruitment. It is conceded before us by the learned counsel that it did not entitle him to any service whatsoever. Even if he had been appointed as a servant he would have been an apprentice, and, as such, he would be merely a temporary servant, and his services could under the present circumstances, be dispensed with at any time. It is to be noted that this is not a case of removal from service by way of penalty.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the petitioner had passed the examination and this Court should declare that he had passed the examination. We are of opinion that a declaration Of this nature would be a futile one. This Court does not interfere by way of writ unless the right of a party is affected in any matter, and it is rightly conceded that the cancellation of examination has not deprived him of any legal right or has, in any way, affected his legal rights.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to a case reported in Laxmi Narayan v. Lt. Col. C. B. Mahajan, AIR 1955 All 534 in support of his contention that the authorities concerned has no jurisdiction to cancel the examination. We have examined this case, and we find that the facts of this case are very different and have no application to the facts of the present case. In the case cited by the learned counsel for the appellant a person had appeared in the B. A. examination. He had passed the B. A. examination. He was declared successful and a B. A. degree was conferred on him. Thereafter, the degree was withdrawn and the person was declared to be not successful. In these circumstances it was held by this Court that the action of withdrawal of the degree was unauthorised and bad in law. It is clear that this case has no analogy to the present case. The passing of the B. A. examination in the ordinary course confers a right on a person to obtain a degree.
In this case it is not contended even by the learned counsel for the appellant that the passing of the preliminary test examination conferred any right on the petitioner appellant to secure the service. Further, in the case cited the withdrawal of the degree had deprived him of a legal right. Further, it was also held in that case that withdrawal of degree could not have been made at all except by the Senate of the University and only under particular circumstances. It was found in that case that no such withdrawal was made by the senate which was the competent authority to withdraw the degree. Under these circumstances this Court had interfered by way of writ. This case has obviously no application to the circumstances of the present case.
5. In the end the learned counsel for the appellant argued that in any case the petitioner should have been allowed an opportunity to show cause against the irregularities in the examination. We find it difficult to understand this contention in view of the fact that there was absolutely no allegation whatsoever against the appellant. There was no charge against him. No reflection was cast OH his honesty, integrity or character. As already observed, this is not a case of removal by way of penalty. Under the circumstances we find it difficult to understand as to why any opportunity should have been given to him and what could be the purpose of giving him an opportunity. The examination was cancelled on the general ground that there were certain irregularities in the examination itself.
6. For the above reasons we are of opinion thatthere is no substance in this appeal. We accordinglydismiss it summarily.