^w\67 HIGH COURT OF eHHATTISGARH; BILASB'UR 7S~--"-^-- DrVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMARSINHA.& HON'BLESHmRAJESHW^RlALJHANWIA^J.J, WritAonealNo. 168/2007 Appellant Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Pyarelal, aged about 35 years, S/o AtHiara.in By Caste Gond, R/o Village Dhandongri, Rost Patpar, Tahsil Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Ministry of Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Rajnandgaon . Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dhandongri, Tahsil Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon Hira Lal, S/o Dhandongri, Distt.Rajnandgaon Deenuram, Tahsil R/o yillage Dongargarh, Writ Apoeal u/S2(ll ofHiehCourt ofChhattisearh (Anoeal to DivisionBench) Act 2006) Preseiit: Shri Punit Ruparel, Adyocate appears on behalf of Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the appellant. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Adyocate General for the State/respondents No.l SE 2. Shri Surait Vernia, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Abhishek Sharma, counsel for respondent No.4. ORAL-ORDER (30.10.2009) Following prder of the Caurt was passed by SunilKutnarSinha.J. • . |l[,i !:i?i "^"^Zi^S^'SSSSac—isn.n -2- ! : : ' WritAppealNo.l68of2007 1. Being aggrieved with the order dated 11th July, 2007 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.3896/07 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the appellant/petitioner has filed this writ appeal. 2. The facts, briefly stated are as under:- i liE The appellant/petitioner made an application for appointment to the post of Panchayat Kanni in Gram Panchayat- Dhandongri, Tahsil Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgoan. As per contention of the appellant, a resQlution of the Gram Panchayat was passed on 25.10.2005 and the name of the appellant was recommended for appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi in the said Gram Panchayat. The appellant contended before the learned Single Judge that even after such recommendation of the Gram Panchayat by passing a resolution in his favour, the matter was not further processed and no appointinent order was issued to hira. Thereafter a communication dated 23.4.2007 was issued from the office of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dongargarh for undertaking the fresh selection process for appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi in the said Gram Panchayat. It is at this stage, the appellant filed the writ petition and clairaed for his appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi and further claimed for queshment of the aforesaid communication dated 23.4.2007 filed as Annexure R-9 in the writ Appeal. The learned Single Judge held that only by passing a resolution of Gram Panchayat in which the recommendations were mads in favour of tl»eappellant, the appellant would have no right to claim appointment to the said post. Taking this"view, the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitionerwas dlsmissed. ! •• j 1-!I (•K;l((M'•:°•?" '•.'-'S''-'''r^-^'~^^KS^3<,m!E"=aB^E<«S?Ka-Si;aS';i.:iSSSS!.::'t?B1Ss^:Stensf«i -3- Writ Atipeal No.168 of2007 SS^':!^i 3. Leamed counsel for the appellant argues that the order passed by the leamed Single Judge is bad in law. The learned Single Judge ought to have issued direction to the concemed authorities to issue appointanent letter to the appellant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents oppose these arguments and support the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. A perusal of Annexure R-9, which is challenged in the writ petition, would show that since the process undertaken for appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi was not in accordance with law, therefore, the appointment order was not issued and.it was directed that fresh Selection should be made keeping in mind the guidelines contained in the "Panchayat Karmi Yojna" and the directions issued in this regard. 6. It is well settled in many decisions of the Supreme Court that even if the name of a person finds place in the selection list prepared for the purposes of appointment to a particular post, the said person has no right to get appointment on the .said post in spite of the fact that the vacancies still exist on the date of claiming of appointment. 7. In the present case, though the process undertaken by' the Gram Panchayat for appointment of the appellant to the post of Panchayat Karmi was found to be faulty by the Janpad Panchayat, Dongargarh, but even if we hold that the appellant was selccted by \.the Gram Panchayat and his selection was proper as per resolution 1HII '-•ssssssssi'x'^sasSs^sgS^aK^^ESSStsSiW^^SSSSsiSiSWSiliastwa s^M.S&y&MQiSSs'atSSS wsfi.ssssaasSsSiiSSSSa "'^§^3^ -4-. : :.' ,: :; ; ..•.:. ; y:l'.^.:'' WritAi»DeatNo.l68of2Q07 -'','.'./•.•:;? of the Gram Panchayat, He will have no right to claim issuance of appointment letter in his favour. The learned Single Judge relying on the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the matters of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India 11991) 3^SCC_47; Ludhiana Central Cootjerative Bank Ltd. Vs. Ainrik Singh & others. f2003) 10SCC 1^6^md_^Unwn oflndia & others Vs. Kali Dciss Batish & another, (2006) 1 SCC 779 has taken this view which appears to be reasonable view in the matter. Had there been a case in which a person down in the list wgyld have been given appointinent in place of the appellant, then only?the appellant would have been a right to claim appointment on the basis of his better position in the selection list. But there is no such situation in this case. Here the process of selection undertaken by the Gram Panchayat was not approved by the Janpad Panchayat. Therefore, in such a situafion the appellant would have no right to claim appointment on the said post. 8. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal has no merits; the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10. There shall be no orders as to cost. Sd/- Sunii Kumar Sinha &' Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge » Praveen 'SS;^SSsS:SSSS'3ESSSS!S'S 3:SS;''iSEF. 'a'KiBiMwB