HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR DIVISIONBiNCH CQRAM: HON'BLeSHRIR^EEV^ HQN'BLESHRlSUNl1-KUWARSINHA,J, WritADDeai{Pffi N6.3151 of2 1G , _ i •"'—T—^-^-;^^;3^-^ ^ ADpellants (PetitionersBelow) lllf .^i-.l. <-< 5. 6. 7. 8. Raju Yadav, s/o late Shri Ratan Lal Yadav, aged ahout 24 yeare, R/o. Behind Vrindavan School, Imtibhata, Distrtet—IVIahasamund(C.G.) Rakesh Kumar Sahu S/o. l Shri Virendra Kumar Sahu; aged iabout 20 yeai-s, R/o. Gram Etoma, Tikrapara, Raipur (G.G.) Khublal Sahu, S/o. Shri Preet Lal Sahy, aged about 28 yearSi R/o. Village & Post Urla (BMY) Distriet .Durg.(C.G.),t:l::,.l ., f:'/^^ Sanjiv Kufnar Bhagat, s/0.1 Shri RajnatR Bhagat, ,aged abou): 20 years, Rto ShantiVihai"©Qlony,Near Qurga.AttaChakki, Raiptlr(C.©.) Preetam Kushwaha,^^ S Narayan Prasad KushiA/aha, ,aged about 28 yeare, R/o^ Sadar Police Line,~Ral<shitKehdra,Raipur(©;G.) Tukeshwar Singh Nagesh, sfe, Shri Jagannath Nagesh, aged ab6yt,25 years, r/0 Village Rajpur, Thana Mairipur,. Tahsit Gariyafaand, district^ Raipur(C.G.) Kalyan Singh ?DhruMyi^S/o;|i Shri •fieenclyal Dhruy,. agSdiSabout 25 years, R/o. Village gainhnj, Rost IVIaroda, TaKsii\ RaipuF(C?0.) Harish Chand Patel, s/o. Shri Setram F'atel, aged about 2|4 years, Rfe. ViHage Psiterapali, Pos1s:B.K.^|Bahra, distriGt Mahasamynd (C;G.) "r'"! ^SS'XS'-tSiSK.-S^S^SSiSs ssBm~a>«~'-.iii 9. Chhabiram Bhardwaj, S/o Shri Brijlal Bhardwaj, aged about 24 years, R/o Village Achhola, Thana Tumgaon, Tahsit & District Mahasamund (C.G.) Respondents (Respondents below) PROFORMA RESPONDENTS (PETITIONERS BELOW) »j:i VERSUS 1. StateofChhattisgarhthroughthe Secretary, Department of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Dfrector General, Pollce Head Quarter, Ctihattisgarh Raipur(C.G.) 3. Inspectpr General, Police Head Quarter, Chhattisgarti, Raipur (C.G.) 4. SuperintendentofPolice, Raipur 5. Chhattisgarh Professional ExaminatiQn Board (WAPAIVI) throughits Chairman, ^3/168, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 6. Tekram Diwan, S/o Shri Tesuram jDiwan, aged about 28 years, R/o Adarsh Adiwasi Colony, Kushalpur, DlstriGtRaipur (C.G.) [PetitionerNo.2 in W.P. (S) -K568/2009] 7. Ravindra Kumar Sethi, s/o Shri Raghunath Sethi, aged about 26 years, R/o. Q. No. 32/F, Sector 2 Sadak2,Bhilai,district:Durg(C.G.) [Petitioner Np.4 inW.P. (S) 4068/2009] 9. KhageswarSingh Maitri s/o Shri "BhagwanBarosh MaitFi, agedaboHt 21 years; r/o. Purena Bjuda, P.0. Jawali, district; Janjgir Ghampa :(C.GO::,.'' ,,/,^ ,^:. [Pe{itionerNo.5inW.P;(S) 4068/2009] 10. ShishirSharma, S/o. Shri Sheru Sharma,agedabout25years,R^. iS'?.-ii; Sde&^Bt^SgB-nu.Sn.i.^'^-S^-feS1 ^i;;^::^^ ~1i a?:i~':SS ®S.<( la:,s«s Agroha Nagar Ring Road 1, Dindayal Updhyai Nagar, Raipur, (C-G-)":'::.. _...;._..; [PetittonerNo.SinW.P. (S) 4068/2009] 11. NarendraKumar Dhruv, S/o. Shri Shyam Lal Dhruv, R/o. Gram: Tonhidabri, Post Dulla,Thana- Ght<ra, District: Raipur (C .G.) [PetitionerNo.TinW.P. (S) 4068^009] 12. '-Jitendra Kumar Verma, S/o Shri Netram^erma, agedaboutSO year$, R/o. Gram : Khona, Thana: Dhareiya, District Raipur (C.G.) [Petitioner No.8 in W.P. (S) 4068/2009] 13. 14. 15. Jitendra Kumar Sinha, S/o Shri Narayan Lal Sintta. R/o. Gram: BQrii, ttistn<;tRaipur(C.G.5 {!?etitioner No.9 in W.P. (S) • 'WS&/3Q^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ Anil Kumai-Verma,S/o Ravmdra NathVerma,a9ed|abfiuf24years, R/aGram: Maath, Thana: Kharora, District: Raipur (C.O.) [Petitioner No.10 in W.P. (S) 406&'20G9] Deepak Prakash Nayak, S/o. Shri .AHil Nayak, R/o. Gram: Ja^, Thana: h3iarora; District: iRaipur^C.G.) [PetitionerNo.11 ihW.P.(S) < 4068/2009] 16. Sanjiv Kumar Bhagaf, S/o Shri Rajnath B1iagat,age^about20 yeaFs, R/o.ShantjyiharColony, near Durga Atta GMakki, Raipur ^GA:..':../._.,..;.^_:^.1'1.-;^^'^ [PetifionerNo.12JriW.P.(S) 4068/3009] / MohantalSaHu,s/oShri'; DfiaramehandSahit(,agedaboyt2® years;R/o;Gratn:Bhyrka,TMana: •"f" .--'•°4' ti. :? •..;. . ' ^ s^ ;^ 4 w\ l:ll^; f: ;.;H l;lililiij Mahasamund, Raipur (C.G.) [Petitioner No.13 in W.P. (S) 4068/2009] 18. Rajnikant Yadav, S/o Shri Maniram Yadav, aged about 22years, r/o. Vilage Hafa, Post Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur,districtBilaspur(C.G.) [PetitionerNo.17,inW.P.(S) 4068/2009] 19. Ashwan KumarSahu,S/o Shri Shankar La! Sahu, aged about 27 years, R/oACC Colony, Jamul district Durg (C.G.) [Petitioner No.19 in W.P. (S) 4068i'2009] 20. Arun Kumar Mishra, S/o Shri Vyas Dev Mishra, aged about 24 years, R/o. Village Karrahan, Post Narayanpur, Thana Lailunga district Raigarh (C.G.) ; [Petitioner No.22 ihW.P. (S) 4068/2009] Writappeal under^ection2 of Sub-Section (1) ofthe Chhattisaarh HiahCourt (ADpeal to Division Bench)ftct, 2007 Present:ShriVarunSharma,leamedcounselfortheappellants. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/ respondents No. 1 to 4. JUDGMENT (9lnAugust,2010) TTie following judgment of the Gourf was passed by / ' . . ' Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel forthe parties are heard. 2) The appellants have flled this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 06-05-20T0, passedinW.P.(S) No.4068/2009. il!'f:!:.':siffl- e^!rss i'! •"°sll ^ t -K8 ;^' lli:iii jll^il lliiii 3) Theappellants and proforma respondents No. 6 to 20 flled the writ petition for the following reliefs: "i. To kindlycall for the records of the case Trom the respondents. ii. Tokindly quash the seleetion process issued in pursuance to the advertisement dated 09/06/2009 Annexure P/1 for recruitment to the post of constable issued by the respondent no.4. iii. To kindlv direct the respondents to consider the petitioners for appointment to the post of Constable as per serial number in the waiting list. iv. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed frtand just inthe facts and circumstances ofthe case iriteludjng awardingto thecosfs to the petitioners." 4) The petitioners, thus in substahce, were seeking a direction to the respondents.to considerthem for appointment to the post of Constable and further tQ;quash the sefection process initiated by the respondents/ State Aythorities in pursuanee to the advertisement dated 09-06-2009 for recruitment to the post of Constahles. 5) The petitioners' entire claim was based on their indusion in the waiting list published on 13-08-2008. The appellants'/ petitioners' main grievance was that the respondents/ State AuthoritieswithoutexfTausting the waiting iist prepared in the year 2008 have initiated the selection process in the year 2009 vide advertisement dated 09-06-2009. 6) Learned Single Judge on a thorough considSration' of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners ahd the 11');''-r m... _L iS»."^C~, ••-yjs^ ^\ SgEs-. 4 'i""-ns y '^ "®.a. [:SU. provisions contained in Rule 13 of Chhattisgarh Police Executive Force, Constable (Recryitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007 (for short 'the Ryfes, 2007) found no substartce in the petitioners' claim. Learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 06-05-2010. 7) Shri Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that th'e learned Single Judge has erred in not giving due weight to the fact that in some other districts in the State of Chhattisgarh, candidates from the waiting list were appointed; the respondents/ State Authorities ought to have appointed the appeilants who were in the waiting list against the postwhich had fallen vacarit before initiation ofthe new recruitment processin the year 2009; and the respondents/ State Authorities have not assigned any reason for notexhausting the waiting list preparecl in ••A-... .. .. the year 2008 and for iftitiating the newseiection process in the month of June insteadof month of July, as prescribed in the Rules. 8) It is settled law that acandidate in theselect list/waiting list has no legal right to seek writ of mancfamys. Such a right is created in favour of the candidate in the select list/ waiting list only in the eventyaltty when a person below him in the seleet list/ waiting /'. '• . ' . .' . .' • :• :' . . . • • •'...• :.'. .' '• - • - list is appointed. Admittedly, in the present case no such appointmenf is alleged to have been made bythe respondents/ State Authorities. ' ' '' •' 9) Rule 13 of Rules 2007 quoted in para 17 of the impugned order does not leave any room for doubt that the seleet 1ist .-.-jfflS^^^ ^ ":!l|»£ii;il~]''"'"a-_J>"i-""::?-',.''''•^•i'—•'•^^^'.' •: . '-. ^^^T'^.^^^^t^^^^J?^^:^ ^ ^^??.ESte:-^yi'.I&^I^^E;^;^i£Effl^^'S!^'l^!i::;'^,>iK£^^' ;?^&^^ prepared in the year 2008 and published on 13-08-2008 came to an end with the initiation of the new selection process in the year 2009 vide advertisement dated 09-06-2009. 10) In this view ofthe matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the tearned Single Judge dismissing the appellants' writ petition. 11) The writ appea!, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebydismissed summarilv. l—~ Sd/- CIriefJustice subbu Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge ^ \ fiiw :!illii! f^' UMtiii