3EPORE tHEMOKKBLEMI&HCOMRTORGHHATTISGARHAT ' ..SILASPUR'"/' '::~::: ;'• WRTT PETmQN F 8:1 N0. /2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS . %;i-i^li ^^a^!^ ^6-*^?^---"'"""" ^^ ^OeoGKai'an Yadav, aged ^ 35 years, soii of S&Fi BIicda Rant.Yadav, Tesiclent; ofvilla:ge - Tiwaripara,^^ K^ ^Pamgarh,-;, Distt. Janjgir-, Champa-(eG) VERSUS' ': , : -•' 1. Sfate.ofChhattisgarhthrough^ tfceTSeeretat^DepattiHentjof Schoyt E^ j Kalyatt Singh Bhawan, RaipHr i-PiM (GG) ^f::;l^ m[ ^ ^^ - 2. The ©ontrolle*, Chlaattisg&fh •Vyavasayik Pariksha. |ManSal, Raipur C/168, Tagore Nagar, .:.Raipur:(CG), : :, i::! ." •'.:'.:^ ^ ;^rfae Ghief Exeeutive^TQffieeF, ZilaPanGhajEaf-BilaspEtrEIQI; ^4..;:':The^.<a!iieft.:Execytive^ '.'• ^:i^aiig^S|iEgtiGUayat;a.'|I||as|aB^ ,^']||>j^JB|asi|i-;|cxiiyi^'j|'J^||J|l wmTPETmO imDERARTICLE2260Efl^Ee<aNSTITt^©^ INDIA 01. PARTICULARS OFTHEEETITIONER ww ;;'yillli .'i^Jlll :^l?!;liil!,' AFf^ HIGH GOURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 5162 OF 2008 Deocharan Yadav RESPONDENTS Versus <• State of Chhattisgarh & Others M Post for pronouncement of the order on S.6 day of March, 2010 ^Sd/- '. SatishK.^iLgnihotn ^ ^ ; JJudge HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Q) N0. 5162 OF 2008 PETITIONER Deocharan Yadav RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ofhers ^ •^' >.»• ^ (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bleShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General with Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerfor the State. ! ORDER (Delivered on this ^6'davof March, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitionerseeKs a direction to the respondent authorities to considerthecase ofthe petitioner for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade -III. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, for disposalof the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 13-1-2008 (Annexure - P/1) issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi (Bilaspur), the petitioner along with other candidates applied for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade - III. On verification of thetestimonialsof the petitioner, an admission card (Annexure - P/2) was issued by the authorities and the petitioher was permitted to appear in the written examination. After succeeding in the written examination the petitioner was called for counseling by letter dated 17-6-2008 (Annexure - P/4). However, all ofa sudden by IP ) •*• --<•' letter dated 23-6-2008 (Annexure - P/5) the fourth respondent intimated the petitioner that he could not be appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade - III on the ground that he was not in possession of D.Ed. certifiGate. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the petitionersubmitted a representation dated 16-1-2008 (Annexure - P/6) before therespondent authorities, but the same has not been considered and decided till date. Hence, this petition. Shri Rajput, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, wduld submit that the action of the respondent authorities isillegal, arbitrary and against the prindples of natural justice. After completing the entire selection process, the petitioner cannpt be deprived from thebenefitof granting appointment on fhe post of ShikshaKarmi Grade - III only onthe ground that he is not in possession of D.Ed. certificate, when the petitioner is in possession ofthe B.Ed. certificate. Per contra, Shri Thakur, learned Dy. Adv. General appearing with Shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyerfor the State, wouldsubmit that preference shall be given to those candidates who are in possessionof D.Ed. certiflcate. The petitioner was not in possession of D.Ed.certificate, but was in possession of B.Ed. certifiGate. According to the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules,2007 (for short "the Rules, 2007") the candidature 6f the petitionerwas to be considered according to the merit list after giving preference to the candidates who are in possessioh of D.Ed. certificate. •^- 7. Even the name of the petitioner could not find place in the select list of non D.Ed. candidates. Learned counsel would further submit thatthe petitionerwithoutavailing the altemative statutory remedyof appeal under the provisions of Section 13 ofthe Rules, 2007straightaway approached this Court. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 1 have heard the petitioner in person, learnedsenior counsel appearing for the respondents, perusedthe pleadings and the documents appended thereto. On bare perusal of the advertisement and Schedule II of the Rules, 2007, the prescribed essential qualification for appointment on the postof Shiksha Karmi Grade - III is Higher Secondary School Certificate & D.Ed. Certificate. Further the note provides that in case of non-availability of B.Ed. or D.Ed. candidates the relaxation from educational qualifications shall be assumed. In the present case, since othercandidates having D.Ed. certificatewere available there was no question of granting any relaxation for candidates who had B.Ed. certificate. The petitioner has not questionedthe validity of the advertisement withregard to D.Ed. certificate. Thus, it is not necessary to go into thequalification aspect since other candidates having D.Ed. certificate were available. The preference was given to the candidates who hadD.Ed. certificate not to the petitioner who was in possession ofB.Ed. certificate. •^e'^S?^' Gowri 8 In Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. AmrikSingh and others , the Supreme Court observedthat "even otherwise, it is well settled by now that a person whose name is said to find place in a select panet/waiting list has no vested right to get appointed tothe post in spite ofvacancies existing.". 9. In Union of India andothers v. Kali Dass Batish and another^, the Supreme Court observed that "mere inclusion of a candidate's name inthe selection/waitinglist gave him no right, and if there was no right, there could be no occasion to maintain a writ petition for enforcement of a non-existing right". 10. This Court in Rajesh Kumar Dewangan v. The Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others held that "the petitioner does not acquire an indefeasible right to beappointed on the post of Assistant pursuant to his selection" and that "no direGtion can be given to issue appointment letter to the petitioner though he has come out successful in the selection process." 11. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, this petition is meritless and assuch, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. . 12. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. ;ISd/-.' •. SatjshK.^Lgnlhotri ^ Judge 1(2003)10SCC136 2 (2006)1 SCC779