C^y' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH (Petitioners HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Appeal No. 217 of: 1. Dushyant Singh Sonwani, S/o Shri Bhola Ram, aged about 24 years, village & post Bhansoj, Thana Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Duleshwar Baghel S/o Shri Babulal, aged about 28 years, Gram + Post Rohansi Thana Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Kishan Kumar Purena, s/o Shri Budh Ram Purena, aged about 23 years, Gram Bhadwa, Post Matia Via Karanji, district Raipur (C.G.) 4. Tameshwar Singh Banjare, s/o Mukul Singh Bangare, aged about 23 years, Gram Dhaba (Kumhari) Post Limtara, District Raipur (C.G.) 5. Sahat Thakur, S/o Ram Singh Thakur, aged about 23 years, Gram Btiodhali, Post Pahanda, District Durg (C.G.) 6. Yuvraj Thakur, S/o Dongar Singh, aged about 24 years, Gram Maluchuva, Post - Komarkhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 7. Veer Singh Dhruv, S/o Shri Khorbahara Ram, aged about 25 years, Gram Tamori, Post Bhavanipur, Thana Palari, district Raipur (C.G.) 8. Harendra Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Ramdayal Sahu, aged about 24 years, R/o Village Nawagaon, Post Marod, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) 9. Jitendra Kumar Dhankar, S/o Shri Ramsnehi, aged about 22 years, R/o 10. 11 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Village Chuldhar, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Santosh Kumar Sahu, S/o Shyam Lal Sahu, aged about 27 years, Gram Dabari Para, Post Gangauti, Thana Surajpur, district Sarguja (C.G.) Narendra Kumar Sapaha, S/o late Bhupendra Sapaha, aged about 23 years, R/o Mathpara Shiltala Chowk Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) Satish K^shyap S/oShri Janak Ram teshyap, aged about 24 years, R/o Village Nigarband, Tahsil Takhatpur, district Bilaspur(C.G.) Yogendra Kumar Tamboli, S/o Shri Kedar Nath Tamboli.aged about 27 years, R/o Ratanpur, district Bilaspur (C.G.) Ghanshyam Patet, S/o Shri Keshav Prasad Patel, aged about 27 years, R/o Village Jampali, Post Kotra District Raigarh (C.G.) Anil Yadav S/o Shri Panchram Yadav, aged about 26 years, R/o near.Rest House Ratanpur, district Bilaspur (C.G.) Geeteshwar Kumar S/o Shri Teeman DasSahu, aged about 23 years, R/o Village Kesla, Tahsil Dongargaon, district Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Tekram Verma S/o Shri Om Prakash Verma, aged about 23 years, R/o Gram Amlidih, Thana Palari District Raipur (C.G.) Ravi Kumar Sharma s/o Shri Krishna Kumar Sharma, aged about 22 years, R/o Village Matiya, Tahsil Post Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G-) Rajeev Kumar S/o Shri Bhagwati /.-^ '"^ '",-t^^K>. .•-:i:"r'''i.. 'A '•'.'• Y ^--/. •^. ';""•"' .- Prasad Sharma, aged about 24 years, R/o Hudco Colony, Bairon Bazar, Raipur; District Raipur (C.G.) 20. Mahendra Kumar Yadav, S/o Dehoo Ram Yadav, aged about 26 years, Gram Didhari, Post Bhansoj, Thana Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) 21. Aniket Kumar, s/o Shri Bharat Bhushan, aged about 24 years, Gram Kurud, Post Kurud, Thana Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 22. Ramayan Lal Sinha, S/o Shri Tika Ram, aged about 23 years, Gram Birsuli, Post Birsuii, Tahsil Kurd, distric't Dhamtari (C.G.) 23. Uday Bhan Singh, s/o Shri Paramhans Singh, aged about 23 years, R/o Sadar Police Line, Raipur (C.G.) Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur 2. Director General, Police Head Quarter, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 3. Inspector General, Police Head Quarter, Chhattisgarh, Raipur(C.G.) 4. Superintendent of Police, Raipur 5. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (VYAPAM) through its Chairman, C/168, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) PROFORMA RESPONDENTS : (PETITiONERS BELOW) 6. Bhageshwar Bhagat, S/o Shri Barju Bhagat, aged about 21 years, Gram Kesra, Post-Kesra, Tahsil + district Jashpur (C.G.) 7. Yuvraj Kumar Thakur s/o Shri Naikuram Thakur, aged about 21 years, R/o New Rail Police Line, Pension Bada, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 8. Eshwar Singh, s/o Shri Dinger Singh Manghi, aged about 32 years, R/o Treepik Colony, Meher Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 9. Mahendra Singh Chatriya, S/o Balu Singh Chatriya, aged about 22 years, Gram-Achoia, Post-Joba, district Mahasamund (C.G.) 10. Sandeep Kumar Verma; S/o Shri Ramkhilawan Verma, aged about 24 years, R/o village Dewada, Post Hasda, Tahsil Berla District Durg (C.G.) 11. Shailendra Kumar Rathore, S/o Shri Keshav Prasad Rathore, aged about 23 years, R/o Bhurkadeeh, Post Jharna, Tahsil Champa, district Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 12. Aluddin Shekh S/o Shri Amurddin Shekh, aged about 23 years, R/o New Police Line, Durg District Durg (C.G.) 13. Dhirendra Thakare, s/o Shri Ashok Thakare, aged about 26 years, R/o Krishna Nagar, Boriya road, Raipur (C.G.) Writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (11 ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court {ADpeal to Division Benchli AcL_2007 Present: Shri Jitendra Pali, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate Genera! for the State/ respondents No. 1 to 4. JUDGMENT (14th July, 2010) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ,/r^??%?%te.,-- ^s^..,^'^ i l •WfSK'!^ ^1 ^!/ Learned counset for the parties are heard. 2) The appellants have filed this writ appeat against the impugned order dated 06-05-2010, passed in W.P.(S) No.3007/2009. 3) The appellants and proforma respondents No. 6 to 13 filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: "i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. ii. To kindly quash the selection process issued in pursuance to the advertisement dated 09/06/2009 Annexure P/1 for recruitment to the post of constable issued by the respondent no.4. iii. To kindty direct the respondents to consider the petitioners for appointment to the post of Constable as per serial number in the waiting list. iv. To kindfy make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding to the costs to the petitioners." 4) The petitioners, thus in substance, were seeking a direction to the respondents to considerthem for appointment to the post of Constable and further to quash the selection process initiated by the respondents/ State Authorities in pursuance to the advertisement dated 09-06-2009 for recruitment to the post of Constables. 5) The petitioners' entire claim was based on their inclusion in the waiting list pubtished on 13-08-2008. The appellants'/ petitioners' main grievance was that the respondents/ State Authorities without exhausting the waiting list prepared in the year " "X fi !; '%^ '-^QEt^ (^. 2008 have initiated the selection process in the year 2009 vide advertisement dated 09-06-2009. 6) Learned Sing!e Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and the provisions contained in Rule 13 of Chhattisgarh Poiice Executive Force, Constable (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007 {for short 'the Rules, 2007) found no substance in the petitioners' claim, Learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 06-05-2010. 7) Shri Jitendra Pali, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the learned Sing!e Judge has erred in not giving due weight to the fact that in some other districts in the State of Chhattisgarh, candidates from the waiting list were appointed; the respondents/ State Authorities ought to have appointed the appellants who were in the waiting list against the post which had fallen vacant before initiation of the new recruitment process in the year 2009; and the respondents/ State Authorities have not assigned any reason for not exhausting the waiting list prepared in the year 2008 and for initiating the new selection process in the month of June instead of month of July, as prescribed in the Ruies. 8) It is settled law that a candidate in the select iist/ waiting list has no lega! right to seek writ of mandamus. Such a right is created in favour of the candidate in the select list/ waiting list onty in the eventuality when a person below him in the select list/ waiting list is appointed. Admittedly, in the present case no such '••S.^^^-'A . ^.y-' 7 ^. ^,,^.«"IJ '''^.v'-'..;^' '"'-.:'s£-is'' [$9 appointment is alleged to have been made by the respondents/ State Authorities. 9) Rute 13 of Rules 2007 quoted in para 17 of the impugned order does not leave any room for doubt that the setect list prepared in the year 2008 and published on 13-08-2008 came to an end with the initiation of the new selection process in the year 2009 vide advertisement dated 09-06-2009. 10) In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellants' writ petition. 11) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hsreby dismissed summarily. ca' Sd/- ChiefJustio Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge subbu