<^ n ^^ ^!^ • IN THE HJGH CQURT OF CHHArfISGARH : BILASPUR Wntj^etition (S) Np. 4644 of 2008 Pfctitioner Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. Sxnt. Praiuoditu Das, W/o. Alekh Das, aged about 37 years, R/o. ViUz^e - Jadamuda, Gram Pauchayat Rajpalpur, Bloch - Pithora, Distnct Mabasamiiad (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, TIuough : Secretaiy, Paachayat aad Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) CoUector, Mahasamund, Djstrict Mahasamund (C.G.) Project OfBoer, Bal Vikas Pariyojaaa, PUiiora, District Mahasamuud {C.G.) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OP THE CONSTmjTION OP INDIA. (SB: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agmliotri J.) Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Pancl Lawyer fi>r the respondents/State. ^c, ORDER (Passed on this 25*h Day ofAugust, 2008) 1. With thc conscnt of learaed couasel appearing tbr the parties, the matter is heaad finaUy. 2. Learued counsel appearin^ for thc petitianer subaiits that the case of the petitioncr for appointnieat on thc post of Augaabadi Karyakarta at Graia Panctoayat - Rajiwlpur has beea considered, on the basis of tbe proceedMtgs, wluch accontmg to lcamed counsel appearing for tfae pctitioncr, has been obtained under the provisions of Kigfat to ta&rmation Act Neverthless, &eah proceedings Iiave bcen initiated by the respondent No.3 to issue advertisement for nttakmg ftesh appointinent 3. It is trite law that a candidate, even if, jhe is sucGessIU iu the select list, has no indefeasibte r^ht to appoaitoient No perscto tias been appointed as Angauwadi Kaiyakarta and the autborities, it appears, Iiave taken a decisina to iuttiate proceedings for fresh appointinent, wfaen ftic first pnxxeding started in July, 2007 and no appointmcut couU be inade tiU June, 2008. There was a delay ia taldng appointment pursuant to the proceedings in Juty, 2007. Sit'~'<i-.. ^'L,-.' ""^'^; r' •J / •St^ff ^' .-^ ^s.. 4. If the petitioner has no iadefeasible nght to tfae appointinent, no writ can be issued directmg the respondents/authorities to give appointment to the petitioner or acy other pcisons, paTdcularly in view ofthe fact that the authonties have started Iresh proceediags for appointinent. 5. Iu the case of Shaakarsaa Dash Vs. Uirion of India1, it was heM by the Honble Suprenie Court that "it is not correct to say fhat if a nuinber of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate nuniber of caiuiictates are not found fit, the successful caadidates acquire an. indetieasible right to be appoiuted whicli cannot be legitimatety derued." 6. It was subsequenfty tbUowuig ia liWJhiana Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Amrtk Sin^i and oU>ers?i, whereia it was he]d by the Hon'ble Supreiue Court that "even otherwise, it is well settled by now tfaat a person whose name is said to find place in a select pancl has no vested light to get appoiated to the post iu spite ofvacancies existaig." 7. Furfher, in Uaioa of Indla aad otl»ei»Vs. KaB Da—Batish aad another3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held fhat ''mere iuclusion of a caudidate's iiame in. fhe selection Ust gave hiin no right, aad ifthere was no right, thcre could be no occaavai to maintain a writ petition tbr enforcement of a non-exfatu^ right" 8. This Court in Rajesfa Kumar Dewangan Vs. The Ufe Insiuaace Corporatlon of India & otliers4 held that "the petitioner does not acquirc an indcfeasible right to be appointed on the post ol' Assistant piusuant to his setection" and that 'no direction caa be giveu to issue appoiattuent letter to the petitioner though he has come out succ^sful ia the selection process." 9. In view of the above, ttus petition tvas no nierit, it is accordingly disnaissed. —— Satish K. Agnihotri Tlialnu --: JudgC *{(1991)3SCC47} 2 [ (20.03) 10 SCC 136} 3 {(2006) 1 SCC779) " {2007 (3) M.P..H.T. 22(CG)}