^ -5%s^ ^y^^ i^y^ ^^..••-^" :^>" . ^^ f^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.5^^5- Of 2006 PETITIONER <^ •;^ '^''..-s^' ^-<--"~ .<-•" RESPONDENTS N<'-' '<ft:' .rK ^ ,.<;"o'"'-'l:. ai ^^w^^~^ ,<P.^^^ <2.^' i*.^' ^ -r~" ^ G- &•• .? ^ Sushil Kumar Patel ,aged about 33 years S/o Shri Yaduniani Patel resident of ViUage Banjipali, Post Office , SaUieona , Via Sariya, Tahsil Sarangarh , District Raigarh (CG). -i.S-'^" VERSUS /1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretaiy, Departnient of School Education Mantj-alay , D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(CG). /2. Janpad Panchayat Baramkela , through its Chief Executive Officer at Baramkela, District Raigarh(CG). ^3. Additional Collector,Raigarh District Raigarh (CG). / 4. District Education Officer, District Raigarh (CG). ^ •'^''" .f-.',; J-.S'.;.?' ^'::2<^ !!v7 hsim\!\'\<S^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^fl HI6H COURT OF CHHATra56ARH AT EELASPUR W. P. Is) No. 5245 of 2006 Petitioner ; Sushil Kumar Patel Versus Respondents : State of Chhattis9arh & others Sirgle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihatri. 1 Smt. Moh Oubey, counsel for the Petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, 6ovt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER (Pcxssed on 4til October, 2006) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction for appointment of the petitjoner on the post of Shiksha Karmi Srade-III on the basis of list prepared pursuant to the interview held on 24.6.1999. The petitioner further seeks seniority and back wa9es w.e.f. 1 July, 1999. 2. It is well «ttled that -the petitioner has no right to appointment on the basis of select tist, particukirly, in the facts of the presentcaas. According to leamed counsel for the petitioner, the select list was published in June, 1999 on the basis of interview held on 24.6.1999. 3. The contention of leamed counsel for the petitioner that simifarly si-hjated candidates, who were in the select list of June, 1999 and had approached this Court- in the year 2002 omd 2003, have been granted retief of appointment, is not ^B&-.rL: \ w Bablu sustaincfcle in faw, as the petitioner has no ri^it to appointment on the bosis of his pkice in the select- tist. Even ol+ierwise, the petitioner has slept over his right for a period of 7 years and this petition wus filed on 21.9.2(X)6 when •the rights of the part-ies and other similarly situated candidates hwe been crystallized by this time. The petitioner has not submitted any reasons for unexplained inordinate deloy of 7 years for approaching this Court. 4. It is vwll settled principle of law in view of the <tecisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Jaqdi^t Narain Maltiar Vs. TTie State of Bihar and others . P.S. Sadasivaswami Vs. Stffteof Tamil Nadu ond Kamcrtaka Power CorDpration Ltd & Anr. Vs. V.K. Thonfiappon & Am. . that repeated representotions ecumot justify a belated qaproach to the Courts. Entertaining bekxted approach would unsettle the ^ttled matters, cnd the same should be avoided. 5. Looking from all angles, there is no merit in •riiis case and as a result, this petition deserves to be and is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge '{(1973) 1 SCC 811} z{(1975) 1 5CC 152} 3{2006 AIft SCW 1828}