,J. (Petitioners Below) 1. Deepa Rajput, d/o. Shri Rampukar Singh Raiput, aged about 24 years, R/o Chingraj Para, Prabhat Chowk, Apollo Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Someshwar Shrivas S/o Shri Panchram Shrivas, aged about 23 years, R/o. (D.C.R.B.) Poiice Department, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Avinash Kumar Dubey, S/o. Shri Byasnarayan Dubey, aged about 25 years, R7o Shriram Sadan, Santoshi Chowk Chantidih, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Respondents Below) 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. Superintendent of Poiice, Raipur appeal under Sectjpn 2 of Sub-Section (1) ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (ApReal to Djvision Bench) Act. 2007 Present: Shri Jitendra Pali, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/ respondents. 1s, '^'^n-1^^11.'.^'.' '~~'~: ^'^ ~\ 'c.^ s ^^^^ ^ '^?^ri-?^^ ^s /y r;-^. '••^'^'" ,^~ The foliowing judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A. i.01/2010, an application for condonation ofthe delay in filing the writ appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds tak& in the apptication, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the writ appeal. 3) I.A. No.01 of 2010, therefore, is altowed and the delay in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. S) The appellants have filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 06-05-2010, passed in W.P.(S) No.3991/2009. 6) The appeilants have fiied 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 advertlsement dated 04/06/2009 Annexure P/1 for recruitment to the post of constable issued by the respondent no.3. iii. To kindly direct the respondents to consider the petitioners for appointment to the post of Constable as per serial number in the waiting list. '^:y-/, ''? "V..1 '.' ^- iv. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed frt and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner." 7) The petitioners, thus in substance, were seeking a direction to the respondents to consider them 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 04-06-2009 for recruitment to the post of Constables. 8) The petitioners' entire claim was based on their inclusion in the waiting list published on 13-08-2008. The appellants'/ petitioners' main grievance was that the respondents/ State Authorities without exhausting the waiting list prepared in the year 2008 have initiated the selection process in the year 2009 vide advertisement dated 04-06-2009. 9) Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the oetitioners and the provisions contained in Rule 13 of Chhattisgarh Police 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. 10) Shri Jitendra Pali, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the learned Singte Judge has erred in not aivina due weiaht to the fact that in some other districts in the State of Chhattisgarh, candidates from the waiting list were appointed; t/ ,..:;'.^"~;;> the respondents/ State Authorities ought to have appointed the appellants who were in the waiting list against the post whlch 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 Rules. 11) It is settled law that a candidate in the select list/ waiting list has no legal right to seek writ of mandamus. Such a right is created in favour of the candidate in the seiect lisf waiting list only in the eventuaiity when a person below him in the select list/ waiting list is appointed. Admittedly, in the present case no such appointment is alleged to have been made by the respondents/ State Authorities. 12) Rule 13 of Rules 2007 quoted in para 17 of the impugned order does not leave any room for doubt that thg select 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 04-06-2009. 13) 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. 14) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summanjy_ c.r Sd/- ChiefJustics Bfi Sd/- 1 Sunil Kumar Sinhai Judge 4- te'»-