NRf"~ SsRgls 3iach IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE AT BILASPUR W.P. No^0~1t /2004 B^ '3K>t PETITIONER s^^y ^•o^p^ ...•-•"^'••"^"' ^••y>^' ^y 'v^.^' ,< l'; '.'•.. <v^ RESPQNDENTS \^ /T> Anup Lakra, aged about 31 years, S/o. Shri Anthony Lakra, R/o. Phunduridihari, Beej Para, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Government ofChhattisgarh, Department of Man Power, Pianning and Technical Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh The Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Raipur, Chhattisgarh The Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AF(? ,(;^i^^ ^^ ftt.°l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION No. 4071 of2004 Anup Lakra. • VERSUS State ofChhaUisgarh & Others. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DMDIA SBiHon'bl^Shri SatishK. AsnihptrkJ, Present: Shri Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 01st day of April,2010) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement 16.10.2004 (Annexure P/l), the petitioner made an application for selection and appointment on the post ofLab Technician, in Govemment Polytechnic College, Ambikapur. The petitioner was duly selected as is evident from the order dated 09.09.2003 (Annexure P/6) which was published in the news paper. Despite his selection, the petitioner did not receive any appointment order in person and as such, the right of the petitioner to appointment has been infringed. Thus, the respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post ofLab Technician. 2. Shri Tiwari further submits that the respondents have no right or power to change the roster after the select list has been prepared. Secondly, the petitioner has legitimate expectation after his selection and appointment and non-appointment ofthe petitioner bn the post is violative ofArticle 14, 16 and 21 ofthe Constitution oflndia. 3. On the other hand, Shri Roy, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent No. 1 to 3 would submit that after the process of selection, it L~ iil iv! ^ '<a I '^Sa J '!§ ^sy |IIISE| //^i was pointed out that the post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Female) candidate. Thus, the petitioner could not be appointed on the post being a male Scheduled Tribe candidate. Accordingly, a fresh advertisement was issued, after cancellation of select list. The select list was cancelled on fhe basis of a complaint made by the SC/ST Officers/Employees Union on 20.09.2003 (Annexure R/l). Thereafter, enquiry was made. In the enquiry report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Ambikapur, it was found that against six post of Lab Technician, 5 persons were ah-eady working and one remaining post was reserved for SC (female) candidate. Thus, his selection was not in accordance wifh law. Second selection was made strictly in accordance with law and roster system. Even otherwise, the petitioner has no right to appomtment on the basis ofselection. Thus, the contention ofthe petitioner that it is violative ofArticles 14, 16 and 21 ofthe Constitution oflndia, is without any basis. In the enquiry report dated 19.01.2004 (Annexure P/10), the case ofthe petitioner has akeady been considered. Thereafter, it was reported that the advertisement was confmed only to the local area and as such, it was not available to all the sunilarly situated candidates throughout the State. Thus, fhe no appointment may be made. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on a decision of the Supreme Court, rendered in Director, SCTI for Medical Science & Technology & another v. M.Pushkara . The facts available in the said case are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in the present case, the selection ofthe petitioner itselfwas found defective and not in accordance with law. It is further not a case where the select panel has _'(2008) 1SCC 448 been ignored or declined for appointment on the whims of the officers, as was done in M.Pwhkaran (supra). 6. It is a trite law that a candidate, even if, he is successful m the select list, has no indefeasible right to appointment. If the petitioner has no indefeasible right to appointment, no writ can be issued directing the respondents to give appointment to tbe petitioner or any other person. (See Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Amrik Singh and other and Union oflndia andothers v. KaliDass Batish andanother). 7. The ratio laid down in the cases, as aforestated, has been reiterated in Rakhi Ray & Others v. High Court ofDelhi & Others 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 9. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit 2 2003 (10) SCC 136 3 2006 (1) SCC 779 42010(2)SCC637