A'F^ ^^ HK3H COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHAT'nSOARH: SiLASPUR W,P^No^^34_Qfa?04 Petitioner Respondents .^SS-^^^S Rajesh Kumar Dewangan Versus The Life Insurancs Gorporation of India and otfiers Post for order onj^ Iviareh, 2C»7. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge S.w-SS!' ...j^£f^ r^VVJI HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No. 2584 of 2004 Petitioner Rajesh Kumar Dewangan, S/o Shri Mani Ram Dewangan, age 29 yeara, r/o near Asha Deep Schooi, new Changora Bhaia, Raipur, C.G. Versus Respondents 1. The Life Insurance Corporation of tndia, through Ghairman, Centrai OfRce, "Yogakshemam" Jevan Bima Marg, P. Box No. 19953, Mumbai (Maharashtra). 2. Rsgional Manager, L.i.C. Centra! Zone OfRce, Jevan Shikah, 60-B, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal M.P. 3. Divisionai Manager, L.i.C. of india Raipur, DMsiona! Offlce Pand", Raipur, C.G, SB: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate ror ihe petffioner. Shri Mukesh Sharma, Advocste for ths respondents. Si ORDER .^ (Passed on this ^Z day of March, 2007) The follov/ing order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihofri, J. 1. By this petition the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to give appointment tetterto the petitioner. 2. The indisputabte facte.in nutshe!), are that the petittoner was declared successfu! in the wriSen examination held on 30.1.1994 and interview held on 14.6.1^5 for appointment. Vide tetter dated 22.7.1995 (Annexure P/3) the petitioner was informed that his name has been placed in fte pane! list for appointment on the post of ^sistant. Accordiag to learned counsel for the petitioner, the name of the petitioner was placed at serial number 81 in the said panel ti'st 3. After a lapse of about 9 years the petitioner has ffled this petition for a direcBon to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant on the ground that the petitioner was denied EEilL.. ..~^'"%^'S?"A""1' f3aSS^"" appointment tetter, despite the fact that he was deciared as successful candidate. 4. ThispetlSion is fited on severa! grounds, inSer aiia, that non issue ofthe appointment order is vioiativeof provisioRS ofAlictes 14 and 21 ofths ConstituSion of India, being discriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonabte. Secondly, even after setecfion, not granSng appointnient to the petitioner for a period of 8 years is against the public policy and She petitfoner is suffering iireparabte loss. The pstitioner does not make any averment in his peBSion that any other candidate, placed betow in the pans! tist, has been appointed, duringthis period. 5. Learned counse! appearing for the respondents submits thaS the appointment on the post of Assistants, Typiste and Stenographers by the Corporation are governed under ttie provisions of Life Snsurance Corporation of india, Recruitment of Ciass I!l and Class fV SSaff Instructions, 1993. fis per ths panel approved by the competent authority vide order dated 15.7.1895, in total 181 candidates v/ere impaneiled for the post of Assistant in Rsipur Diviaon, v/hich is as under:- (0 00 (iv) (V) O.B.C.Category Genera! Scheduied Caste Scheduled Tribe Ex-Serviceman 22 candidates. 83 candidates. •50 candidates. f\r\ Oh \vl^ i~iiysically Handicapped Total 43 candidates. 1 candidate. 3 candidates. 181 candidates s of 6. Learnsd counss! for the respondente ftirthsr submite that the nams -the petitioner is placed at serial nusnber 81 in She ranking, in generai categor/. Til! the year 1998 in all 159 candidatss have been offered appointments as per roster and in the generai categofy only 66 candidates have been appointed on She post of AssisSant. it is next contsnded that as and when the divisional office of fhe respondent Co a'a!iy-a.'!g;s;jS;S=^^g< "^f^s^ >• 8. Le Corporation is permittsd to appoint Assistants, the same shail be offered to the candidates from the pane! SisS, in the order of their ranking. as per ttie roster avaiiabte at that time. Ths DMsionaS office has sSopped appoinSnent of any employee for want of work for them. Having heard iearned counse! for the parties and having perused She pieadings and documents appended Shereto, ft is apparent that the pefrtioner is agyrieved by the non appointment on the post of ^tesistant on the basis of panei !ist dated 15.7.1995 (Annexure R/5). .eamed counsel appearing for She respondent Corporation has made it ctear thaf no luRJor to the petitioner, placed betov/ in She panet iist, has been appointed ti!l date and for the Cme being appoinSRisnte on She post ofA;Assistants have been stopped due to paucity of work, availabie for them. As and when any appoinfcTient is made, tte candidates in the pan-st iist would be offered appointment, in aecordance witti their ranking in the impaneted iist, as per roster. 9. Leamed counsel appearing for fhe psCtioner has cited severa! deeisions, wherein iooking in to She facte and cireumstances, candidates piaced betow in fte panel list have been appointed and Sie candidates piaced above have beer, ignored. !n the present case Shere is no proved discrimination, arbitrarinsss or unreasonablsness, as no candidate, piaced below in the panel list, has been given appoinftnent tetter tiii dafe. Thus, the petffioner has faited to make ouS a case for discrimination, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. 10. in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of Sndia {(1991) 3 SCC 47}, it-n'as held by the Hon'bte Supreme Co'urt that "it is not correct to say that if a number of vacandes are notified tor appointment and adequate number of candidatesars not found fit, the successful candkiates acqulre an indefeasibis right to be appointed whieh cannot be legitimatety dsnied." 4 ; ;;5;^3S-^-^P'^^ ES'ia.^^diagSsSy 11.It was subsequently foliowing in Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank ISd. vs. AmriR Ssngh and others {(2003) 10 SCC 136}, wherein st was he!d by ths Hon'bte Supreme Court that "even oteenwse. it is well settted by now that a person whose name is said to find place in a se!ect panel has no vested right to get appointed to the post in spite of vacancies exfeting". •I'? C .Further in Uni&n of India and others vs. Kali Dass Bafish and another { (20(^) 1 SCC 778), She Hon'bleSuprsme Court hs!d that "mere inclusion o* a candidate's name ir, the seiection list gave him no 'hakur right, and ifthsre was no right, there could be no occasion to maintain a writ peEition for enforcsment of a non-existing righf. 13.The Hon'bte Supreme Court in Bsitarani Graniiya Bank ys. Pallab Kumar and others {AIR 2K)3 SC 4248} has held that if Shs banks ars forcsd to accommodats Officers and FieldSupsrvisors mors than fcheir required indent, it Virfll have a crippling eflfect on Sse Bank and pub!te interest w!l stand seriously prejudiced as sevsrai empioyees wiil have to be unnecessarify rstainsd and public money wil! have to be expended on ttiem. When pubiic intsrsst competes with prr/ate interest, ths private interest vvill have to give way to public interesS. 14.1n view of the settled principle of !aw {he psSioner does not acquire an indefeasibie right to bs appointed or, the post of Assistant pursuant to his selection vsde tettsr dated 22.7.1^5 (Anneyure P/3), iftattoo after a lapseo'Syears. 15.Therefore, in She facte of {he case, no direction can be given to Issue appointmenS ietter So She petifioner though he has come out successfui in the sdectton process. 16.1n the resuit, Sie petifion is dismissed. No order as So casSs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge