HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR Writ Appeat No.347 of 201 O APPELLANTS 1. 2. 3. Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Krishak Nagar, Raipur (CG) through its Registrar. Vice Chancellor, Indira Grandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Krishak Nagar, Raipur (CG) Secretary, Board of Management, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Krishak Nagar, Raipur (CG) Versus RESPONDENT: Dr. Keshab Das, S/o late Shri K.L. Das, Associate Professor, College of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry, Anjora, Durg (CG) Present: Shri Ramakant Mishra, counsel for the appellants. Shri Ali Asgar, counsel for the caveaor. Division Bench: Hon'bleShri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. JUDGMENT (17-2-2011) 1. By this writ appeal, the appellants have impugned the order of learned Single Judge (Annexure-A/1) dated 12 April, 2010 whereby the respondent's writ petition has been allowed and the appellant University has been directed to considerthe case of the respondent in the like manner as has been done in other cases and take appropriate decision for appointment of the respondent on the post of Professor, Veterinary Livestock Products Technology (for short 'theVLPT'). 2. Shri Ramakant Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants argued that. the impugned order has been passed taking into consideration that the appellants' name is second in the panel list and the first person in the panel list Dr. Sil has already decided not to join the post as he has chosen other .^\ S Q-^^F^ 1 %^.....^' ^ ^'y discipline for joining whereas in other cases of Dr. J.S. Urkurkar, who was third in the panel for the post of Dean, Student Welfare and Dr.R.L. Pandey, who was also in the panel for the post of Dean, Agriculture, were appointed on the aforesaid posts. However, Dr. R.L. Pandey and Dr. J.S. Urkurkar have beenappointed as Deans, which are statutory posts whereas the Board of Management in its 72n meeting held on 27-6-2009 resolved to issue fresh advertisement for the post of Professor, VLPT. It is settled law that mere inclusion of name of a candidate in the select list or panel does not confer any right to claim appointment. 3. On the other hand, Shri Ali Asgar, learned counsel for the respondent would argue that the appointment on the statutory post of Dean and on the post of Professor was made on the basis of same selection process and, therefore, contention that the same logic is notapplicable in the case ofthe respondent as in the case of Dr. Pandey andDr. Urkurkar, who were appointed against the statutory post, is frivolous and baseless. The Board of Management, while rejecting the application of the respondent, has not assigned any reason as would be evident from the minutes of 72 meeting of the Board of Management. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records as also tbe impugned order. 5. Learned Single Judge, considering the attitude of the appellant authorities thatthey declared the result of interview only on intervention ofthe Court and that result was declared onlyaftera direction was issued by this Court on 25- 3-2009 in another WP(S) No.390/2009, has held that the attitude of .the appellant authorities was prejudicial towards the respondent when similarly situated person Dr. Pandey and Dr. Urkurkar were granted appointment on the post of Professor in other discipline when they were in panel list and the post became vacant. On non-joining of the first selected candidate, the case of the respondent for appointment on the post was not considered and it was decided to issue fresh advertisement for appointment on the post of Professor, VLPT. v Banie Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sankarshan Das Vs. Union of India1, K. Jayamohan Vs. State of Kerala & another2, and Food Corpn. of India & others Vs. Bhanu Lodh & others , it has been observed that the case on hand is not a case wherein thebasic principle that a candidate has no indefeasible right to appointment despite being in the select/panel list, is applicable. In the case, discrimination is writ large and the non-appointment of the petitioner against the vacant post of Professor even on being found eligible in the panel list, is infected with the vice of arbitrariness and discrimination, it is tantamount to infringement of fundamentalright as enshrined inArticle14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. After considering the pleadings of the respective parties and documents appended therewith and on close scrutiny of the impugned order, we are of the opjnion that the aforesaid finding of learned Single Judge is based on material available on record and the same does not call for interference. 7. In the result, we do not find any substance in the instant writ appeal, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. -— Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge L... 1 (1991)28cc 47 2 (1997)58cc 170 3 (2005)38cc 618