JUDGMENT
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.
1. The appellant was selected by the Railway Recruitment Board for appointment to the post of Apprentice Mechanic (Mechanical) and his name was recommended to the Konkan Railway Administration by the Railway. Recruitment Board. This fact was communicated to the appellant as per Annexure-B letter dated 22.5.1995 issued by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board. In Annexure-B, it was also stated that an offer of appointment would be issued to the appellant in due course by the appointing authority, provided he was otherwise suitable. However, it was also stated in Annexure-B that qualifying in the interview does not confer on the candidate any claim for appointment which is subject to their being found suitable by the Administration in all respects. The appellant was also requested to contact the Chief Personnel Manager, Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, in all future correspondence. Since, no offer of appointment was received from the Konkan Railway Administration, the appellant submitted Annexure-D, representation to the chief Personnel Manager, Konkan Railway Corporation Limited requesting to issue an appointment order to the appellant at the earliest. The said representation was received in the office of the Chief Personnel as Manager on 18.5.2000. Still there was no favourable response from the Konkan Railway Corporation. Hence, the appellant filed the Writ Petition No. 22740/2000 praying for a direction to appoint the appellant as Apprentice-Mechanic (Mechanical), Junior Engineer (Mechanical) or any other equivalent post in Konkan Railway, Southern Railway, South Central Railway, Wheel & Axcel Plant or any other zones.
2. The Konkan Railway Corporation filed the statement of objections opposing the prayer in the writ petition. In the statement of objections it is specifically stated that in the absence of a vacancy or additional requirement, it was not possible to offer any appointment to the petitioner/appellant. It was also stated that there were 10 candidates including the petitioner who had been empanelled by the Railway Recruitment Board, Bangalore, Trivendrum, Mumbai in May 1995 for Konkan Railway. But there was no vacancy to accommodate any additional hand in the category mentioned. It was further stated that Konkan Railway had not recruited any candidate from open market to the post for which the Railway Recruitment Board had selected the petitioner. According to the averments in the statement of objections, being unable to offer appointment, Konkan Railway corporation had made sincere attempt to get the petitioner and similarly placed persons an alternative placement in Central/Western or Southern Railway, based on the selection by the Railway Recruitment Board. However, they too could not accommodate the candidates inspite of best efforts, as there were no vacancies and there was no possibility in the near future. It was contended in the statement of objections that Konkan Railway Corporation did not offer a job to the petitioner and that the qualifying in the selection process conducted by the Railway Recruitment Board did not confer on the candidate any right or claim for appointment. But it is specifically pleaded that it was not possible for the Konkan Railway Corporation to offer appointment to the petitioner as there was no vacancy in the category and there was no possibility of any vacancy becoming available in the near future.
3. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the writ petitioner in the writ petition has filed this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also considered the materials placed on record.
5. Obviously, the appellant has no alternative remedy available to him under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, deals with jurisdiction, power and authority of State Administrative Tribunals. A State Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction only in relation to recruitment and matters concerning the recruitment to any civil service of the State or to any civil post under the State and also to ail service matters concerning a person appointed to any civil service of the State or any civil post under the state and pertaining to the service of said person in connection with the affairs of the State or of any local or other authority under the control of the State Government or of any Corporation or society owned or controlled by the state Government. Admittedly, the post for which the appellant was selected is not a civil post under the State and the Konkan Railway Corporation is not a Corporation owned or controlled by the state Government. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, even Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, is not attracted in this case, as the subject matter of the dispute will not come under any of the categories mentioned in Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
6. However, even assuming that the writ petition is maintainable, we are of the view that the relief claimed by the writ petitioner in the writ petition cannot be granted by this Court. Firstly, the selection by the Railway Recruitment Board on the basis of the Written examination and Interview did not confer any right on the appellant for appointment in the Konkan Railway corporation. This was specifically stated in Annexure-B letter dated 22-5-1995. In the absence of any enforceable right this Court, cannot issue a writ of mandamus compelling the second respondent to appoint the petitioner/appellant. Secondly, in the statement of objections filed by the second respondent, it is specifically pleaded that there was no vacancy available for appointing the appellant. It was also stated that there was no possibility of any vacancy arising in the near future. It was further pointed out that the second respondent had not conducted any direct recruitment to the post for which the appellant was selected and recommended by the Railway recruitment Board. When the second respondent has specifically pleaded that there is no vacancy to accommodate the appellant and when there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the statements and when the appellant has not placed on record any material to show that the statement is factually wrong, this Court cannot compel the second respondent to offer any appointment to the appellant. Thirdly, the selection of the appellant was in the year 1995. More than 10 years have passed. We do not think that the recommendation made by the Railway Recruitment Board for appointment as Apprentice-Mechanic can hold good at this stage.
7. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed.