:wé ink‘zx; WRIT PETITION (S) NO 67/? I OF 2008 : , PETITIONFR V / Pra‘nay Verma, ‘agéd about 29 years, S/o shki s.K. Verma, R/o i Torwa Gu‘runanék Chowk, Bilaspur, ‘ ‘ ' ‘ 'Tahsil and District Bilaspur-(C.G.) I l VERSUS ' §_gE§E_ONDENTS' : (1. V State @f Chhattlsgarh VI Through The Secretary, V Land Revenue Ti‘ Department , Mantralaya D KS Bhawan Ralpur ‘ 4 ’(CG) The Commiesioner, ‘ Lané‘ Record, Chhattisgarh, I Raipur(CG) ‘ 4 4 ' The Supermtendmg Land Records V ‘1 Bllaspur (C G ) I Theg Collector, (Landvk ,Record), 7 Bilas'p.ur(c.iG.) ‘V I I Ajay; Kumar Soni S/o Ayodhya V, Prasad Sonl aged about 28 years R/o ,Lorml, TahSIIVV‘Lorml, District Bilaspur"(cG) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF > INDIA ' DAD-rrrwu Ann n.- -.-...— ... - ‘V W ‘L “adPETn 5NER ‘ i3! \ a5_.._~,., _ RES§ONBENTSn,Li ' ‘ ‘:y~:s£" S£“‘E? ‘ W g Lv ost of Patwaries on 27/ai2008 (Ann'xure R-3 n te s xtramlng, candidates may participate In fresh examinahon for ~appomtment on the post of Fatwa" in ’Patwati ExaminatEon 200' They would also be enhtled to some reiaxation on :ccount of havin obtained Patwari tanning There are 172 oandidates Including t , pa'rtloipate petitioner who in have the Patwari undergone Examination the Patwanf 2008 ainm for and selection are invkd a appointment Thus, the gnevance of the petitioner Is without an alsrs ' ‘ ' ' l have heard learned counsel appearing fo the parties and peruse the pleadings and documents append _/ thereto The pendoner i seeking quashment of memo dated 24I8l2008 whereb th eioner on e representation made by him was mfonaed mat me erits wrthi a period» of one mimnth Pursuant dieteto the impugne order dated 28/8/2008 (Annexure P-1 4) wa se The orde is easoned otder lt has been made clear that after Initiation of th r e waitinglist has been expired and as such the Monet has no right iv he petitioner may apply for the pardcipatton in the exan accordinl T o he contentio _‘of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled t o is e e , ya y T said _ ‘ ther serwce The petitioner being next to him in the wamng list ntitled to appomtment on the post of Patwari accordingly He mad representation which was rejected b the authenties he I Ip ) I h aid, de ( ¥ ‘ 8 g he g nd to y b . i d . s y e ptti th , m d V s " sd t a T miation gy ontenion of the pegihgqmidgggrvss to bowejected on a siml ct pe ground I+defeaslble that a right candidate to get appointment being in the sel to e panel/whiny post in spite at ha exustin has vacancies (See Ludhiana Central Cooerative Bank mnk Singh and Others ) n Union of India and Others v Kati Da s Batish and Another the ime Supreme In the selectioMi/airmg Court observed list that gave mere him Inclusion no right of and a if canddete more wa no nght there could be no occasion b maintain a writ etition enbrcement ofa non-existing nht" he Supreme Court In Rakhl Ray and Others v Hih Court elhi and Others observd as unde “ s th b t ds T g of D e r 24 A person whose name appear In e sect Ils oe not aoqmre any Inde$aable riht o pponrnent Empanelmen rooesscametoenen husthereaoah cope ofany furtheraom is Court in Raiesh Kumar Dewangan v The Life insure orporation of India 8; Others held that “the petitioner does no cquire an Indefeesihle nght to be appointed on the post of Assistan pursuant to hrs selection“ and that no direction can be given to issue ppointment letter to the petitioner thotgh he has come outse In the selection process A n pplying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case o and this petition is meritless and as such the etitioner is n ntitled to any relief h p ot e n the result the wnt petition fails and is hereby dismissed No orde sto c 1 (2003) 1o scc1s (2006) 1 soc 779 (2010) 2 soc 637 x 007 (a) MPHT 22 CG M s s I 2 () \w no V I g V p Ltd v ' A I z n s s \L,‘ g p br g f ait tetlhebestiseconoi&n pd tbeno s pphnent. Th anc c t a t a uaoesM .I . I r a osts