HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1 152 of2009 a :1 1 -J PETITIONER ; Smt. Savitri Anant, W/o Shri Mai»j Kumar Anant, aged about 27 years, R/o OId Gum Ghasidas Chowk, Balco Nagar Korba, Tahsil & Distt. Korba (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENT8 : 1. StateofChhattisgarh,throughtheSecretary,Panchayat and Rural Development Department, DKS Bhavvan, ^ Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). 2. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Through Registrar Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). 3. The Chief Executive Ofticer, Janpad Panchayat Bammhidih, Distt. Janjgir Champa (CO). 4. Block Education QfiGcer, Bamnihdih Cum Additional ChiefExecutive OfBcer, Janpad Panchayat Banmihdih, Distt. Janjgir Gha&npa (CG). (WRIT PETITIONUNDER AR'HCLE 226 OF THE CONS1TTUTION OF INDIA) fSB: Hon'Me Mr. Satisb K. Aenihotri, J.) Present Shri Santosh Yadu, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 27th day ofFebraary, 2{M?9) V/ith the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing fmally. 1. The petitioner, by tfais petitioii seeks a direction to the respondent to issue appointment letter in favour of the present petitioner. He further submits fhatthe petitionerwas duly selected forthe post ofShiksha Kamu Grade III which was conducted by Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur. The petitioner furfher submits that by letter dated 24.09.2008 the petitioner was asked to appear before the concemed authority for verification ofthe original documents. She appeared before the aufhority but she was informed by the authority that since the candidate (petitioner herein) belongs to Seience group student therefore she eannot be appointed on the vacant post of Shiksha Kanni Grade III (Arts Group), without filing any documents in support ofhis contention. 2. The question, as to whether the petitioner is entitled for appointment, has not been addressed by the counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner has not mentioned anything except that the action of the respondent authority is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law as the respondent No. 4 has refased to accept fhe letters ofthe petitioner twice. No reasons have been assigned and the petitioner has not tried to establish illegality, arbitrariness or irregularity in the petition. 3. It is a trite law fhat a candidate, even if, she is successful in fhe select list, has no indefeasible right to appointment. If the petitioner has no indefeasible right to the appointment, no writ can be issued directing the respondents/authorities to eive appointment to the petitioner or any ofher persons. , 4. In the matter ofLudhiana Central Co-operatwe Bank Dtd. v. Amrik Singh and Other^, it was held by the Supreme Court that "even otherwise,it is well settfed by now that a person whose name is said to find place in a select panel has no vested right to get appointed to the post in spite of vacancies existing." 5. Further, in the matter of Union oflndia andOthers v. Kali Dass Batish andAiwth^, the Siipreme Court held that "mere inelusion ofa candidate's name in the selection list gave him noii^at, and ifthere was no right, there could be no occasion to maintam a \wit petition for enforeement ofa non- existing right." ®> '2003(10)SCC136 2 2006 (I) SCC 779 ',' Sahu 6. This Court, m ihe ra&Uer of Rajesh Kumar Dewangan v. The Life Inswance Corporation of Iiulia & Othw/ held that "the petitioner does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed onthe post ofAssistant pursuant to his selection' and that "no direction can be given to issue appointment letter to fhe petitioner though he has come out successfal in the selection process." 7. Admittedly the petitioner had not applied for science group and the vacarit post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III was in Arts group and, as such, she could not have been posted against the vacant post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III (Arts Group). There is no infirmity or illegalit^?. in not appointing the petitioner againstthe postofShiksha Karmi Grade III (Arts Group). 8. Accordingly,the petition is dismissed sunanarily. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihofril Judge ' ;