, ^\A^-^L ^s^^ ^....-:^'^-"""""- ..,'k*1'"!^?^"'" '^ ^" \f-~v ^f ^ p~l ^^) /. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. (St N03V20P 2008 PETITIONERS: 1.-^ Dulanva Khuntey S/o Late Saju Ram Khuntey, aged about 38 years , Occupation Unemployed, R/o ViUage ^ ^' ^ON \ \v^ Kediarwar P.S Sarsivan Block 8s Tehsil Bilaigarh Distt. Raipur (C.G) . 2. "" Mahesh Ram Sidar S/o Sukdev Sidaar aged about 37 years ^-' •o \S! o- <? Occupation Uneraployed, R/o Village Gatadih P.S sarsivan Block & Tehsil Bilaigarh Distt. Raipur, 3. Raj Kumar Barman S/o Shri Sant Rani Barman aged about 26 years, Occupation Unemployed R/o Village Jaitpur Block 8s Tehsil Bilaigarh Distt. Raipur. 4. Teeka Ram S/o Shri Dharam Singh Sahu aged about 26 years, Qccupation Unemployed R/o ViUage ,y/ L<»^ K"et' \^ •^sSW^S^ ^•"" .[;' •' • :^ Khamhariya P.S Sarsivan Block & TehsU BUaigarh Distt. Raipur(C.G). 5. PraUad Sahu S/o Shri Vd Ram Sahu aged about 21 years ,0ccupation Unemployed R/a/ Village Gopalpur P.S Sarsivan Block & Tehsil Bilaigarh Distt. Raipur (C.G). 6. Shahi kala Sahu W/o Rajendra Prasad Sahu ,aged about 21 years Occupation Unemployed R/o Village Tata P.8 Sarsivan Block 85 Tehsil Bilaigarh Distt. Raipur (C.G). 7. Shiv Kumari D/o Shri Panch Ram Jaiswal aged about 20 years ,0ccupation Unemployed R/o Village Bhatgaon P.S( PoUce Post) Bhatgaon Block 85 TehsU Bilaigarh Distt. Raipur (C.G). 8. Bhushan Dev S/o Sampat Ram aged about 22 years Occupation c^- Unemployed, R/o vmage Bahmanpuri ,P.S Basna Tehsil SaraipaU Distt. Raipur (C.G). 9. Khirod Kumar Bagh S/o Chhabilal fy^ Bagh aged about 24 years Occupation Uneinployed, R/o Village Gatadih P.S Sarsivan Block & Tehsil BUaigarh Distt. Raipur (C.G). 10. Smt. Laxmi Devi Sahu W/o Mohan Lal Sahu aged about 24 years Occupation Unemployed R/o -Village Setfty'VetiK t—^ _ v^_ Kedar P.S &tnmgaA Distt. Rai^aa-^f (C.G). VERSUS RESPONDENTS:!. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Panchayat 8s Ryral Development D.K.S Bhavan, Manteralay Raipur (C.G). v- <!-- 2. The CoUector , Rai^to-K- Distt. Rai^ttrh- (C.G). ^ 3. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchyat Raipur (C.G) 4. Chief Executive Officer ( C.E.O) Janpad Pnchayat BUaigarh Distt. Raipur (C.G). 5. Janpad Panchayat Panchayat BUaigarhDistt. Raipur (C.G) Through The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh Distt. Raipur (C.G). ^ 9^ BB :K!1 Biil iH - ...-.-.-...._,./.; 6. The President Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh Distt. Raipur (C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ti^sjiSi^& WSIiS VSWiSSS, zf HIGILCOURT OF CHRATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS WRITPETITION CS) No. 343 of2008 Dularwa Khuntey & 9 Others. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofCUhattisgarh & 5 Others. •^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QFJN^IA Present: Shri S.N.Nande, Advocates for the petitioners. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. G.A. forthe State/respondentNo.l&2. None for the respondent No. 3 to 6. SBLH^n'ble Shn Satish K^AgnihQtrL i JUDGMENT (Delivered on .^5. day of October, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioners seeks a direction quashing the letter dated 29.12.2007/01.01.2008 (Annexure P/l) whereby fhe Chief Executive OfBcer, Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh, was directed to cancel the counselling for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade HI, which was scheduled to be heldon 14.12.2007. 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners are that piirsuant to the advertisement dated 08.03.2007 (Annexure P/3), the petitioners alongwith others made applications for selection and appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III. The petitioners were placed in the waiting list and counselling was decided to be held on 14.12.2007 (Annexure P/6). A select list of 94 candidates was prepared and out of which, 54 candidates appeared and participated in the \<v counselling. Thereafter, appointment orders were issued to all 54 candidates, but 50 candidates joined their posts and four seats remained vacant. As a sequel, the petitioners who were in waiting list were called for counselling which was scheduled fo be held on 14.12.2007. In the meantime, the new mles viz. fhe Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment & Condition of Services), Rules, 2007 came into force w.e.f. 29.11.2007. Thus, the counselling scheduled to be held on 14.12.2007 was cancelled vide the impugiied letter dated 29.12.2007/01.01.2008 (Annexure P/l). Thus, th;- petition on the ground that the decision of the respondent authorities is discriminatory, arbitrary as the petitioners have acquired indefeasible rights to appointment after having found their names in the waiting list, as vacancies were available. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are entitled to the appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, as they were in the waiting list and they were further called for counselling which was to be held on 14.12.2007. However, the same could not be held on account ofarbitrariness ofthe respondent authorities. Shri Bhatia, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3, would submit that it is well settled that even if a candidate finds his.name in the select list, it does not give him indefeasible right to appointment. None appeared on behalfofrespondent No. 3 to 6. However, the respondents, vide their return dated 03.03.2009 would N^^^ aaisSSSi ^ o submit that due to enforcement of Chattisgar Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment & Condition ofServices) Rules, 2007, the counselling scheduled to be held on 14.12.007 was canceUed. The petitioners have not acquired any right to appointment merely on the ground that they were called for counselling. °- 6. Heard leamed eounsel appearing for the parties, perosed the pleadmgs and documents appended thereto. 7. This Court, on 17.01.2008 directed that ttie vacancies available pursuant to the advertisements dated 08.03.2007 may not be filled up till the next date ofhearing. 8. Itis atrite law that a candidate, evenif, heis successful inthe select list, has no indefeasible right to appointment. If the petitioner has no indefeasible right to appointment, no writ can be issyed directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner or any other person. (See Ludhiana Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. Amrik Singh and other and Union of India and others v. Kali Dass Batish and another). 9. The ratio laid down in the cases, as aforestated, has been reiterated in Rakhi Ray & Others v. High Court ofDelhi & Others . Itt. Applying the well-settled principles oflaw to the facts ofthe case on hand wherein the name ofthe petitioners found place in the waiting list, fhereafter no appointment could be made on account of the letter dated 29.12.2007/01.01.2008 '2003 (10) SCC 136 22006(1)SCC779 3 2010(2)5cc 637 1 [ s iia 11. (Aimexure P/l) whereby the counselling which was to be held on 14.12.2007 was cancelled, there is no infirmity or illegality. In light of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, and for the reasons stated in Shashi Bhtishan Patel & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others , proneunced today, the writ petition is devoid ofmerit and is accordingly dismissed. 12. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Amit W.P.(S) No. 163/2008 & Other connected matters. •