GH CQERT G? CH§’§ATT§S&3AR§“§ AT BiiQSPUR DWESION §E§§§CH “(KEsEEiiRM H€E9é5§i§ SEW RAEEV Q£§FTA CJ. §§2M§LE SHR? $L§N§L KijMA§% $EMHA9 3. W MS r§t £353 §a§ i‘éa. 2M 9f E Janmeyay Singh R&ihore, Sm Shr§ Gashrai‘h Singh Rathere, aged about 2” yeara Rfe Sabra (Purenapara}, Vyaha Jay Ram Nagarg Di$irici 8Haspur(CAG4} (Pgtiua‘ner Be§aw} um Wf§% a nagj gn rwémn 29f $ubugggi§an 1 m? im G§§§§i€é3qgh Hiwu xiiiéimrx i$§gpea§ é'a} Eéwgian Ea-anch: Aw: 2%:91 Prggem: $‘nri \iarun Sharma, igamed cmmse! fix the appsliani‘ $hr§ Ki$hore Bhaduri, $eamea’ Addmmai Advocate Genefai far tha State! respandentg. q§5s§3§GME§AIT 4%t” §E§gaa€s 2w1a§§ Thg faliewmg gudgment af the Court was pasaed t3y R&gaav Gugatag $t9 Learned counse! fer the patties am hea’d 2} The appettant has féleg' this writ appear! agatnst the tmpugnad Grfiégt dateét 06—O5~201 0; pa$$ed in XM.P.{S} N6381372009. / Q§ V aw E EER§US R®§imm§wi3 1‘ State sf Chhatasgarh; {R6$p0ndeiiis Chhatasgarh; Through the S$creiary, aemw) Semfi'maam m" Hame, DKSS Bhawan, Man‘iraiaya, Raipur ($3? f Sifeci‘or Genemi; P0§§ce Head Quari’er, Chha‘tf§$ga.¥h g Chha‘tf§$ga.¥h Raipur (013} Superintendent of Police, Jashpur )b 3) The ameiiantl gaiiiiana filed ihe writ petmon fix the foi§owing ral§ef$: m s. ’i‘e kindly sail for th9 {600nm Gf the ca$e from ihe ye3p0ndents. ii. , Te kindiy quash ihe se§eci§on preogsg i3$L4ed in. purmance to the adveriigement dated G4!O6!20i1)9 Annexure P/1 for rearuiiment t0 tha pcssi 0f censtabia i$3ued by the respondent n03. iii. To kindiy direct the s’e$pz)ndem$ to oonoiéer the potitioner E’Oi appoinimeni to the pooi of Qonstabie ao oer serial number in the waiiing iist. iv‘ To- kindiy make any other order that may be deemad fit and just in the facts and Circumstances of the oeee inciuding awarding of the coete to the petitioner.” 4} The‘aopetiantf petitioner, in the writ petition was seeking a eireotion to the respondente to consider him for appointment to the poet of Constabte and further to Quaeh the selection prooeee initiated by the reepondentel State Aethotttiee in pursuaooe to the advertieement oeted Q4—Q6-20GQ tor recruitment to the poet of Conetabteer P3) The petitioner’s entire claim was beeed on his inoiueion in the waiting itet pubiished on 13-08-2008. The eepeiiant’e/ petitioner’s main grievance wee that the reepondente/ State Authorities without exheoeting the wetting ,tiet prepared in the year 2008 have initiated the eeteotton prooese in the year 200g vicie advertteement dated 04435—2Qf39 6} Learned Single Judge on a thorough oonsicteratton ot the eubmieeions edvenoett on behait of. the petitioner and the x 7: ,mmvigians, comainad in Rum 13 of Chhatiisgarh Poi§ce Executive Farce, CcanStabie (Rearuitment and Conditiem 0f Servise) Ruies, 2907 (fw 3horf ‘z‘hé Rules, 200% found no sutmtance in the petiitioner’s claim. Learned Single Judge; theieforei dismissed the Wi’ii peiiiion vide impugned order dated 06-05-2Q1 0. 7) Shri Varun Sharma, ieamed eounsei foiy the appeiiant vehementiy argued that the ieameci Singie Judge has erred in not giving due weight t9 ihe faci that in some Other disiricie in the Siate (3f Chha‘itisgarh, candidates fmm the waiiing iist were appointed; the reepondenisr State Authorities ought to have appointed ihe enneiiant who was in ihe waiting list against the post which had taiien vacant befere initiaticn or“ the new recruitment precese in the i year 2QG9; and the respondentsf State Authorities have not assigned any reason for not exhausting the waiting tist prepared in the year 2008 and for initiating the new seieetion process in the month of June instead of month ef Juiy, as prescribed in the Ruies. e) it is settled iaw that a candidate in the seieet list/ waiting list hes no iegel right to seek writ o? mandemtis. Such a right is created in favour of the oanelidate in the select iist/ waiting list only in the eventoaiity iii/hen a person beiow him in the seieot' list! waiting i iiet is appointed. Admittedly, in the present case no such appointment is alieged to have heen made by the respondentsf $iate Authorities. 9) Ruie 1.3 of Ruies 2007 quoted in para ‘i7 of the impugned order does notieave any room for doubt that the seiect iist rxt “u. pi’eparéd in the year 2008 and pubHshed can 13438—2008 came to an end with the initiation 9f ihe new seleciion prace$s in the year 2699 vide advertisemwt dated 04-O6~2OOQ. 10) in ihis View of the matter, we do noi find any infirmity in the imnugned order passed by ihe Igarneci Singie Judge dismiwing the appeiiant’s writ petition, ii) The writ appaai, iherefere, is iiabie i0 be éi3mi3sed and is gubbu hereby dismiseed summariiy. i Sdl- Sd/_ Chief Jus‘iCé i 1" Sunil Kumar Sinha ' i 7 \ .‘ Judge \ ‘ i