'^i^SW^H^^^^^^^^^^E K '^ IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w;P. t6lNo. OF2010(S.B.I. PETITIONER ^•iy^ f-<l\ ^,^~ ^^' »&v SELntoshKumar-^a, ,/^yy^€l S/o. late Shri M. L. Aiya,.^^ aged about31 years, at New ^^...-^.. Sarkanda,Ashok Nagar, '•*" ••' ' .'*f*~ • ^- ' ' - ...'"• .'" / '••.•• ' ' s-'' ' f":'~' "'y'.^t^^ ..<"/n/& _.- , • _. . _.-. . ._ _ . -^^' BilaspurDistrictBilaspurfC.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS y :l.TheGeneral Manager, Cum-Executive Director, N. T.P.C. Ujjaval Nagai-, Seepat, Tahsil . Seepat, District Bilaspur, (C.G.) /<2. Sr. Manager, Departmenf of Human Resources N. T.F.G. Ujjaval N^ar, Seepat, T^hsil Seepat, District Bilaspur, -(C.G.) : . • ' 1: • ,:-.. •:. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTiTUTlQNOFlNDIA The pefitiQner nametl above begs to submit as under:- 1. PARTICULARSOF'fHEPETlTIONER: As giverciri the above cause title. s>^ '\ HI(3H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRITPETITION (S) N0.6679 OF 2010 PETITIONER Santosh Kumar Aarya RESPONDENTS Versus The General Manager-cum- Executive Director, NTPC & Another (Writ Petition under Articles 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Beneh : Hon'ble Shri SatishK. Agnihotri, J. Present:- ShriAjay Barik, counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.D. Guru, counselfor the respondents. ORDER(ORAU (Passedon this 31st dayofMarch, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to declare the resultsof the examination conducted for selection and appointment on the post of LabAssistant Trainee. 3. The indisputable facts, iri nutshell, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 12-10-2007, the petitioner along with other eligible candidate made an application for selection and appointment on the post of Lab Assistant Trainee. Admission cards were issued and the written examination had taken place on 3-11-2007. Thereafter, the final results were not declared, thus a direction may be issued to the respondent NTPC to deelare the final results. 4. Per contra, Shri Guru, learhed counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that during the process of recruitment.the land oustees started agitation and demanded employment in lieu of acquisitionof their land. The State authorities intervened and it was decided in the meeting held by the NTPC Management that no appointments should be madeon the vacant post in non-executive cadre at NTPC, Sipat and the same should be reserved for ^-<^^£^asi£^^:'A-\'?^J "^s, ^ ^•-^.•^y^^ ^ ti '•yia.^^i 1 ^, "".. / ^ ^•, 'ss-y.,/ !%t,,,^y Gowri employment to those people who are members of land oustees of acquisition offheir land. . Be that as it may, it is the settled principle of law that a candidate of being selected has no indefeasible right to appointment. However, if the appbintment has not been made, the reasons for non- appointment must be based on sound reasons. In the case on hand, even the petitipner was not a successful candidate, as no select list was published and no appointment was made. The NTPC has established the sufficient reasons for not filling up the vacancies through proper selection process, which was initiated pursuant to the advertisement. In view offoregoing, no direction can be issued to the respondent- NTPC for declaring the result or taking any action thereof. As an upshot, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby djsmissed. No order asto costs. , Sd/-,:..,^:,.''.: Satish^Agnihotn Judge