AF^ ^•3 HIGH CQURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.6728 of 2007 Om Prakash Markandey & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Post for pronouncement of the judgment and order on^-3-2009 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge PET1TIONERS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BJLASPU^ Writ Petitipn (S) No. 6728 of 2007 1. Om Prakash Markandey, S/o Shri Itwar Singh Markandey, aged about 23 years, R/o village Bagdabri, Post Khisora, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). 2. Durgesh Singh Sidar, S/o Shri Pardesi Singh Sidar, aged about 26 years, R/o .village post Faraswani, Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir- Champa (CG). 3. Shekher Singh Sidar, S/o Shri Nanki Lal Sidar, aged about 36 years, R/o village post Adbhar, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). 4. Prakash Singh Raj, S/o Shri Gadesh Ram, aged about 27 years, R/o village Bhursidih, post Sakreli (Baradwar), District Janjgir-Champa (CG). 5. Radhe Lal Manjhi, S/o Itwari Ram Manjhi, aged about 28 years, R/o village post Adbhar, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). 6. Santosh Singh Bhaina, S/o Shri Manbodh Singh Bhiana, aged about 29 years, post Lalsara, Tehsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). 7. Kranti Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Jagdev Prasad, aged about 25 years, R/o E-277, CSEB Korba (West), District Korba (CG). 8. Suk Kumar Jagat, S/o Shri Ram Singh Jagat, aged about 30 years, R/o Darimuda, Post Adbhar, Tahsil Malkharoda, Dist Janjgir-Champa (CG). 9. Mahendra Pratap Singh Kanwar, S/o Naman Singh Kanwar, R/o Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). 10. Aamilal Sidar, S/o Shri Mukundram Sidar, aged about 35 years, R/o village post Pota, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). 11. Kishan.Gopal Sidar, S/o Shri Hridya Singh Sidar, aged about 29 years, R/o village post Ragja, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). ^iW^- 12. Ritesh Lakra, S/o Shri Alisha Kumar Lakra, aged about 30 years, R/o village post Rahod, Via Kharod, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 2. 3. Director, Land Raipur(CG). Record, District District Collector, District Janjgir - Champa (CG). (Writ petition underArticte 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sunil Otwani and Shri Saleem Kazi, counsel for the petitioners. Ms. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on this ^3, dav of March, 2009) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 29-9-2007 (Annexure - P/1) whereby the applications invited for appointment on the post of Patwaris to fill up backlog vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribe category candidates by adveri:isement dated 13-3-2006 (Annexure - P/2) has been cancelled. 2) The indisputabte facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners, are that by advertisement dated 13-3-2006 (Annexure - P/2) issued by the respondent No.3 applications were invited from the eligible reserved category candidates to fill up backlog vacancies on the post of Patwari. The petitioners herein being the members of Scheduled Tribe category applied for the aforesaid post pursuant to the advertisement dated 13-3-2006. Thereafter, the respondent authorities directed th'e petitioners to appear in the computer training centre, which is evident from Annexure - P/4. However, by order dated 29-9-2007 (Annexure - P/1) the advertisement dated 13-3-2006 was cancelled. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petiticliers would submit that once the notification for fillng the vacant posts of SC/ST category has been issued, the same cannot be cancelled. The respondent authorities ought to @ have made provisions for relaxation in qualification to fill up baeklog vacancies. It was further stated that subsequent to cancellation of the selection process, a fresh notification was issued on 13-8-2008 wherein the candidates, who had earlier applied for the post of Patwari were permitted to apply again. However, since they are required to undergo written test and process of interview, the same cannot be done. Learned counsel would further submit thatas per the earlier circular dated 21-7-2003 to fill up backlog vacancies, there was no requirement of written test and processof intervlew. 4) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 5) The main question involved in this case is' asto whether the advertisement inviting applications for filling up backlog vacancies of reserved categories pursuant to the notification dated 13-3-2006 can be cancelted before completing the selection process. The candidates belonging to reserved category i.e. SC/ST made applications, pursuant to the notification dated 13-3-2006 wherein there was no provision to go through the process of written test and interview for selection. The subsequentnotification for appointment on the post of Patwari provides for the written test and interview for selection. In the selection process, the provision of introduction of written test and interview cannot be held as illegal or unconstitutional. It is for the State Government to fill up the posts in accordance with the qualifications prescribed under the rules and in accordance with the procedure of selection as determined by the State Government. State authorities cannot be directed to fill the backlog vacancies without conducting written test and interview, as the selection process has to be determined by the employer/State Government. By making. applications pursuant to the earlier notification wherein no writteh test or interview was prescribed, the petitioners have not acquired any right to consideration or to appointment on the post. It is purely a policy decision and there is no illegality or irregularity or infringement of any right of the petitioners to consider their cases for appointment as prescribed under the provisions ofArticles 14 and 16 ofthe Constitution of India. 6) For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is being devoid of merit and without any substance, the same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. ~ - Sd'- SatishK.Agnihotrl Judge Gowri