.. ^6- ;8E IN. ^HE HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR WmT PETITION rSI No. \?^\ /2010 ra^ITIOKf^RS ^ ^ s^ '. ^>/./""/ -^y '.-Q/^\'^"" ^.^y: •^•' y ~ ..^ •v ^y ^ ^^y '^>*" RESPONDENTS ^ 1. Smt. Shobha Singh, wife of Shri Suraj Pratap Singh, aged about 40 years, resident of Village - Lakhanpur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) Smt. Annapurna Gupta, aged about 42 years Village Budabagicha, (Rajpur) Post.- Rajpur, Tahsil- Rajpur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) Smt. Rita Singh Wife of Shri Sunil Singh aged about 39 years, R/o Narsinghpur, Via- Rajpur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisagarh Through: under Secretary, Woman & Child Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) The Commissioner, Woman & Child Development Department,, Raipur, (C.G.) Director, Woman & Child Development Department, Raipur (C.G.) District Woman & Child Development Offlcer, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^3. ^" ,:/^ 1 ^•l^p' "'^ 1 ^s^ Lt HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S} No. 1 891 of2010 PETITIONER : Smt. Shobha Singh & Others VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Bhupendra Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri M.P.SBhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (^ORAL) (Passed on 26th day ofApril, 2010) 1. Case of the petitioner is that in pursuant to the advertisement dated 9/2/2009 the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Supervisor. The selection process was conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board on 22/3/2009. Thereafter, the select list was published on 29/5/2009, but no appointment order pursuant to the said select list has been issucd till date. Thus, the right of the petitioner to appointment on the post of Anganbadi Supervisor has been infrmged. 2. Shri Bhupendra Singh, leamed counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the petitioners have acquired right to appointment, on being selected by the Board, thus non-appointment ofthe petitioners, infringes both fundamental and legal rights of the petitioners. Thus, a direction may be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganbadi Super^isor. 3. It is well settled by now that a person whose name is said to find place in a select panel/waiting list has no vested right to get appointed to the post in spite of vacancies existing. (See Ludhiana Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. Amrik Singh and Others ). 4. In Union of India and Others v. Kali Dass Batish and Another2, the Supreme Court observed that "mere inclusion of a candidate's name in the selection/waiting list gave him no right, and ifthere was no right, there could be no occasion to maintain a writ petition for enforcement of anon-existing right." 1 (2003)108cc 136 2 (2006) 1 SCC 779 Ashok This Court in Rajesh Kumar Dewangan v. The Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others3 held that "the petitioner does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed on the post of Assistant pursuant to his selection" and that "no direction can be given to issue appointment letter to the petitioner though he has come out successful in the selection process." It is not a case ofthe petitioners that any candidate pursuant to the select list has been appointed till date and, as such, there is no question of any discrimination or arbitrariness. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, this petition is meritless and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 2007 (3) MPHT 22 (CG)