PETITIONERS /l. M gmm mag- 37L ”r 3C3, ! 'w IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CG 1S 73 /2005 EFT PETITION NOT Neeraj Gupta, son of Shri Ashwani Gupta, aged about 26 years, resident of Near Bus Stand — Pandariya, Distt. Kabeerdham (CG) Prakash Kumar Mishra, son of Shri Balram Prasad VMishra; aged about_27 years, r/o. Bazarpaxa, Pandariya, Distt. Kabeerdham (CG) Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, son of Shri Shyam Bihari Shfivastava, aged about 30 years, resident of village Nanapuri, Tahsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabeerdhaxn (CG) Mustaque Ali, son of Shri Roshan Ali, aged about 31 a /’4 . years, ’resident of village Hathmudi, Post'Kunda, Tah. Pandariya, Distt. Kabeerdham (CG) Dinesh Kumar Sahu, son of Shri BL. Sahh, aged about 28 years, resident of Village Majnpura, Tahsil Pandariya, ‘ Disttt Kabeerdham (C.G.) g RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, Through — the Secretaly, Department‘of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The Collector, Kabe‘erdham (Chhattisgarh) The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat — Pandariya, Distt. Kabeerdham (CG) The Superintendent of Police, Spacial Polico Establishment Lokayukt Office, Raipur division, Raipur (C.G.) \ K r WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 85 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . VERSUS /1. . 7&1‘. HIGH COURT {3F CHHATT§SGARH Z B§U§3PUR WRIT PETH‘WN NO. ‘3579 OF 2G05 :’‘§'3T30NERS Neera§ Gupta & Oihers §E RESPCNDENTEE {\Nrii Peiition unc$er Ariicie 226 & 22? 0f the Canstiimicn 0f indie) Séngle Bench : H0n’b3a Shri Satish K. Agniham; J. V$rsus State of Ch‘nattésgam a: Others Present:— Shri Rajeev Shrivastava and Snri Maiay $hrivastava, sauasei far the gafmoners. Smi FAK. Bhaduri, Paraea Lawyer foa’ the $$ate. aRDER {ORAL} {Passed 0r: this 12"“ day of Maith, 2619) By this petiticani the petatmners seek a directian to the :esaaondent authomies t0 appeint me petitioners on ihe past cf ShikSha Karmi. Learned counsel appearing icy ihe petitioners subm§is that eariier the petitieners were appointed by the tespondent Ne3 an the post of Shiksha Karmt for a patted of ene year and thereafter, the same was extended tar a further period of one 'year. in the year 19% the respondeht autherittee iesued an advertisement fer the east ’ef Shiksha germ. The petiticners aiong with other candidates appiied {or the same. After cempietien of the seiection process the name ef the petitieners were ptaced in the waiting iist (Annexure — P5). it was further sutsméttee tnat in spite oi the fact that the petitienere were in eessessien 0f requisite quatification and experience, their eases nave net at aii been censideren and the nersons wire are having iess quaiifica‘tion, have been seiected and their names have been pieced in the main seiect iist. Against the said action; the 9etitioners made campiaints before the autnerities; but tiii date no appointment orders have been passed tn reepect 0t the aetitionergjjtygtnis getitien. 7/ b). . %g@ a} £ have heard iearned counsei appearing for the pariéeS, perused ihe pleadings and the documents appended ihemie. 4) it is we§l sewed by new that a persan whose name is sa§d i0 find piece in a seiect panellwaating iést has m) vested righi ta get agpeimed i0 me post in spite 0f vacancies exieting. (see Ladhiana Cemral Co-operat§ve Bank Ltd. v. Amrik séagh and Others‘). ' in Union of india anti Gthers v. Kaii Ease Batish ami Anethaz, the Supreme Ceurt observed that “mere mmusion of a candidate’s name in the seieciionr’waiting list gave him no righ’i‘; and if there was no right; there couid be no eccasion to mainiain a rit petiiion far enfarcement of a non‘exisiing right.” i3) This Court in Rejesh Kumar Dewangan v. ‘i‘he Life insararzce Cerporetian of india 8: Gthersa heid ‘Ehai “me pefftiener dees mi acquire an indefeasible right to iie appcinted on five post 0f Assistant pursuam‘ fa his sefectimi" and that “no direciion can b gven to iésue appeimment ietter fa fhe petitioner theugh he has come out succssful in the seiecfion process.” " piying the wen-sewed principies of iaw t0 the facts a? the eas on hand; this petition is meritiees anti, as such; ihe petitionr is not errtitied to any reiief. 8i in Vthe resuit, ihe writ petition faiis and is hereby dismissed. No order asto osts. c it Sd/- 7 " Satish Kt'Agnihotri Gowri Judge 1 (2cm) to soc 136 2 {2006) 1 soc 77e 3 2007 (3; MPHT 22 (CG) w e i e Ki Ap e e