IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (WP. (S) No. EFGKW/w) PETITHONER z / Rameshwar Ram S/O Dansai Ram about— 38 year, R/o. Village— Kamarima, Tah. -Bagicha, Distt: Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENDS : /: 1. State ofChhattisgarh, Through : Secretary School Education Department DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Jaspur, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA State of Chhattisgarh & Others L {Wtit Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnii'iotri, J. Present :— .» Shn Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner WV HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ($z NO. 5505 OF 2009 Rameshwar Ram Versus PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Shri P K Bhadun Panel Lawyer for the State Shri Akhrlesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No 2 ORDER (oggu " (Paasecl on *hrs 29 day of March 201 0) z .ma: nnaya.-“gum-s:wue~.aW.-.-snn.-:u By this petitron, the petitioner seeks a direction to ‘the respondent ~ authorities to verify the testimonials of the petitioner andfnrthet direct them to consider his case for appointment on the ipost: of‘ Shiksha Karmi Grade - l. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submi$ thatApursuanl: to the advertisement, he applied for the post of Shiksha Karmi‘ Grade - t atong with other candidates. After duelscrutiny, admit card was 3 issued to the petitioner and thereafter the petitionev appeared ‘=in the written examination. According to the petitioner, he sueceeded in the selection process, but the information with regard to his selection was not sent to the petitioner. However, the same has been published in the newspaper vide press reiease dated 21-6-2009 and _ asked the candidates to appear for counseling on 29.632009 and 30~6-2009. At that time, the petitioner was'takinQ treatment at Ranchi, Jharkhand, as is evident from Annexure~ P/3, therefore, he could not participate in the counseling process. Learned counsel further submits that the counseling was conducted within a short ' l .5) span of two days from the date of press release. The said action of the respondent authorities is iliegal and arbitrary. Thué, this petition. 3) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit! that on the basis of merit list the information was sent to the seiected candidates and counseling was conducted in the month of w September, 2008. The name of the petitioner was not in the merit/select list, therefore, the question of sending the information ~ does not arise at all. The name of the petitioner find place in the v waitinglist. The State Government by order dated 30-52009 ‘(Annexure - R11) extended the period of validity of waiting list for the period from 31 5-2009 to 31 —8-2009. However, again by order dated 27-6-2009.(Annexure —- R12) the State Government. reduced the period of validity of waiting list till 30-6-2009. Acoordingly,rinathev interest of the candidates, immediately after receipt of the order dated 27-64009 by press release dated 27-6—2009 (Annexure — R13) 42 candidates were called for counseling-within two days. ln the counseling 23 candidates appeared .and they were accordingly r appointed. The petitioner failed to appear in the counseling, thus the a petitioner is not entitled to any reliefv 4) ~ i have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. lt is evident that the respondent authorities have acted in a fair and transparent manner by calling the candidates for counseling immediately atter ereceipt of the order dated 27-6-2009 by which the State Government has fixed the validity of the waiting list tilt 30-6-2009. Be that as it may, it is well settled principle of law that a candidate, , -> being in the select paneilwaiting- list’has no vested right to get F) appointed to the post in spite of existing vacancies. (See Ludhiana Centrai Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Amrik Singh and Others')‘ ' 6) in Union of india and Others v. Kali Bass Batish and-Anathey', the Supreme Coult‘ observed that “mere inciusion of a candidate's name in the selection/waiting list gave him no right, and if there was no right, there could be no occasion to maintain a writ petition for enfotcement of a non—existing right.” 7) r This Court in Rajesh Kumar Dewangan v. The Lite insurance Corporation of India & Others’ held that “the petitioner does not = ‘ acquire an indefeesible right to be appointed on the postof Assistant a pursuant to his selection” and that “no direction can be given to‘issua appointment letter to the petitioner though he has come out successful in the selection process.” - 8) - There is no dispute that the name of the‘petiotner was not in the first select list. His name finds place in the waiting list and accordingiiy he was called for counseling. The petitioner failed to appear before the > authorities for counseling, thus his case was not considered tor appointment. «8) Applying the well-settled principles of law to the tacs of the case on hand, this petition is meritless and, as such, the petitioner is not > entitled to any relief. 9) ~ln the result the writ petition fails and is herehy dismissed No order asto costs. ‘ SCI/- I m 5aHSh K Agll‘hntri I * p dge Gowri ‘l (2003) io soc 136 2 (2006) 1 soc 779 3 2307 (3) MPHT 22 (Ge I ‘ u