HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR s Petitioner Writ Petition No. 331 of 2002 Ganeshram Lahre, S/o Shri Ramlal Lahre, R/o Palarikala, Tahsil Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Chainpa, Chhattisgarh. Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Genl Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Collector, Korba, Chhatdsgarh. Onkar Prasad Sahu, S/o Shri Somaru Sahu, R/o village Korsi, via Kharaud, Distt. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh). Paduman Pandey, S/o Shri Prahlad Pandey, R/o Village Seoni, Distt. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Ms Meera Jayaswal, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDER (Oral) (Passed on this 29U1 day ofJuly, 2009) 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard fmally. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide intimation letter dated 23.2.1999 (Annexure P/l), the name of the petitioner was sent through the Employraent Exchange, Korba for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III. The news item (Annexure P/2), wasvpublished in daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar dated 22.3.1999, in this regard. The recruitment process was initiated under the special-drive for recruitment on various posts, reserved for the scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, scheduled caste women and scheduled tribe women, candidates, -g»*zcsgh. ^^^ ^ ; 'fcs^, '^ 'iDi;1.-^" .y which remained vacant on account of non-availability of candidates. The selection was made through interview. Naine of several persons, including the petitioner, were recommended for appointment. This was a special-drive to clear the backlog on account of non-availability of candidates in the general selection method. The petitioner, being scheduled caste faced the interview successfully and his name appeared at serial No.7 in the select list for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III. Without assigning any reason, though some persons from the select list (Annexure P/2) were appointed, the petitioner was not appointed. In the meantime, it appears that two persons i.e. respondents No. 3 and 4 froin the general category were appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III on compassionate basis. It is found that the fact was brought to the notice of the State Government. The Under Secretary, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Backward Classes and Minority Welfare Department, State of Chhattisgarh, by letter dated 18U1 May, 2001 (Annexure P/7), addressed to the Collector, Korba, objected to the action that the appointment of the general candidates on compassionate basis, reserved for SK selected candidates from the scheduled caste category, was unconstitudonal. The select list was prepared under the special-drive to clear the backlog of the vacant reserved posts. The letter dated 18th May, 2001, reads as under: ° d4<)<hl f^T ^ tREr ^' ^^ t f^ f^Tl^T lcff ari^raFT ^ tI5(T SSUf^ 5RT qtj- 1999 ^' rf44fl(;ij|<Y q,T ^pf ^? pl^Rd IRFI ^ ^ aft | ^q^T ^ra'er ^' 5TRPT c^ EiTpT ^' ?!? dTqT ^PTT t f^ 31-1,^0 ws\f^ ^ 6 ^•ypici ^*4)<{cii'iT ^t ?rg qi? ^; P|<J,RTI ^T ^t IT^ t llllt 7. ^ fe ^gsr TRf q»t ar^Tqr P)^R() ^ ST?T 3r?q cfhT ^t 'ff(ff ^? RPTT ^rar uit f^; f^?hr •ff^ aiPTiiT-T wf^qT.T ^ Radiii t i 3I(T: 311^<ll'j,-HI'< Pl^Rld f f^» 3T? ^RT ^i<Plrt 6 'd"fl<<<11'!T ^t f^r^ 4" ft^r tRt' TR Pi'yii'^'tfi'i ftgf^r ff^T-T q?^ ^t +i'il<<i^) ^? qft 7T^ <t'l'il<<t^ ^ ?TRFT W ^aTTSfhT Sra^KI ^CT^ ^T q?^e q>? i" Despite the letter dated 18th May, 2001, it appears that the Collector, Korba did not take any action and the petitioner remained un-appointed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition on 11.2.2002. In normal course, the petitioner has no indefeasible right to appointment even after his selection. This Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 2057 of 2008 (Khirodhar Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 8s others), relying on various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that "It is trite law that a candidate, even if, she is successful in the 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 give appointment to the petitioner or any other persons". Further, this Court in Rajesh Kuniar Dewangan Vs. The Life Insurance Corporation of India & others1 held that "the petitioner does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed on the post of Assistant pursuant to his selection" and that "no direction can be given to issue appointment letter to the petitioner though he has come out successful in the selection process." But in the facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein the special-drive was undertaken to fill-up the vacancies {2007 (3) M.P.H.T. 22(CG); •8sg|i? K v»»s'1"'-tf 'v _.,-'^ :'-',,w^^'~ fll 8. 10. of reserved category candidates and the petitioner was one of the successful candidates, there was no reason to deny the appointment to him. The result remained the same as the vacant post remained vacant, which was reseryed for the reserved category candidates. It appears that two candidates from general category were given appointanent on compassionate basis, which has been found even by the State Government, as unconstitutional. This is a serious matter where righfcful claim of a scheduled caste candidate has been denied and two persons from general category have been appointed de hors the constitutional scherae of appointment, without proper selection process. Denial of appointment to the petitioner against the reserve post is unconstitutional and illegal. Having regard to the facts situation of the case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, without expressing any opinion on the appointment ofthe respondents No. 3 and 4, as they have already served on the post for about seven years, the respondents No. 1 and 2/State are directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner, forthwith. The petitioner shall be entitled to seniority and salary with effect from the date of his appointment. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs.10,000/-. The State may recover the cost from the concerned officer, who violated the provisions of Constitution, which enshrines that reserved candidates only must be appointed against the posts reserved for them. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agiiiiiotri Judge Wi