N$LE N THE HON’BLE HIH COURT OFVCHHATTISGA ILASPU _ fEHTIoN'ER; 'If aed> H bou V, 25 y ars R/V; V1age VV'Gurla o mh araan [istrict Naréyanur - . VERSUS = he Stte of Chhatt1sgarh troug Secretary Home Mmlstry ‘van Ralur G, . ,ZBha; p (0) ‘g 2y Pce .irctor “Genel PoCe, eag’iqu‘artef‘, Ralpur (C é '. oli Nhu ér-‘ayap arayanpu istrc $I BENgH ‘ I G RH AT / BR ~ ig 11- ? , Pst Bj, Nypur D p (C C1,) T a hh L D K S .nEspoNp‘Enirs 1 ' , K \ H De ra of li; .H G) r I Nr; Dit _ HIGH COURT OE CHHA’l‘TIgQA RH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) Nd, 2145 of 2010 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 04 day of Eebruary, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment according to the waiting list of the year 2009. and further, to issue appropriate direction to the respondents restraining them from making any appointment in pursuance of the advertisement dated 17.03.2010 (Annexure P/4). . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.06.2009, the petitioner applied for the post of Constable (General Duty) in Narayanpur Police District, under the Scheduled Tribe category. After completion of the selection process. the petitioner was placed serial No. 9 (Annexure P/2) of the waiting flist for the scheduled tribe category. Shri Agrawal further submits that according to the Chhattisgarh Police Karyapalik Ba1, Arakshak (Bharti Tatha Sewa Ki Sharte) Niyam, 2007, (for short ‘the Rules, 2007’) a waiting list is valid for a period of one year from the date of its issuance. Rule 13(2) of the Rules, 2007 further provides that during the intervening period, the posts which fall vacant on account of promotion, retirement, death, dismissal etc. shalt be filled up from the ~-.candidates of the waiting list. Shri Agrawal next submits that there are 13 posts vacant. He further submits that one candidate from waiting list uhder the scheduled tribe category has been given appointment and without filling up the remaining posts, the respondent authorities have initiated ,a fresh recruitment process by advertisement dated PETITIONER : VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State 0f Chhattisgarh & Others. 7.0.01. us, te acon o e responent auorities is arbitra 1320 Th h ti f th d th ry and illegal. . n the other hand, Shri P.K.Bhaduri learned Panel Lawer apearin for the‘State/respondents submits tat it is not te case o e pettone hat a candidate who is below the petitioner in the merit'list ha b pp ‘p b e petitioner in the merit list in their respective category. The remainin 10 osts have been tilled up by direct recruitment. Thus, there is no p e a l. 4. ’Be that‘as it may, it is well settled principle Of lawlthat a candidate being in the select panel/Waiting list has no vested right to ge ppointmentto the post inspite of existin vacancies. (See Ludhian C In Union of India & Others v. Kali Das lBati'sh & Another', th upreme Court oserved tha nclusion'ofa andidat‘ei’sname i O , y pg h h f th iir t {ny s ’een‘g’iven aointment from the Waiting list. It is an admitted 'ositionthat three candidates, who have-been appointed are aove th g p ost lying vacant to consider ’his candidature for appointment and th ction of’the State/respondents cannot be held as arbitrary’andille’ga t . a g a entral Co-operative Bank‘Ltdi v. Amrik‘Singh'& Othersi). . 2 e S b t “mei i n he selection/waiting list gavehimrno right, and’if there wasno right t , therge’eould be no oCcasion to maintain a writ petition for enforceme of‘a non-existing righ ” urther the Sureme Court, in Rakhi Ray & Others v. High, Courtro‘ elhi & 0thers observed as une 2‘4. A erson whose nam oes not acquire any ineease right ~ o ppointment. Emanelment at the best’ is ondition o eigibility for te purpose ”o ppointment and b itself does not amount t election or create a veste rgt to e appointed he vacancies have to b filled up as per th tatutor rules and in Conformity with the onstitutioa mandate. In the-instant case,t,once 1 otified vacancies Were filled-zup; the selectio rocess came’to an nd, thus,'there couid be n n (2003} 1'0 scc i36 (2006)=1 scc 77 (2010) 2 s’cc‘63 2 9 3, ‘ nt . . F, p f D 3, dr: “ p e appears in‘the select list; d dfibl f a p a c f l h f a y o s d ih b ; T e) sy cnl 3 n n p e o scope of any further appoitmentf’ l 7 ‘ T j K v Th uel: dtu” q h f t rsunt to, his selection” and that “no direction can e given to ssue ppointment letter to the petitioner though he’ has come out successful n te selecon procss” . dmittedl, the candida w e t waiting list are above the petitioner in the merit lst in ther respective cg y dcr1m1na10 e t h cner. ds . Applyin the well—sttled‘princ'iples ‘of law to the facts o te cae o hand, this etition is meritless and, as such, the pettioner s not etl y . . In‘theresult, the writ petition fails and is hereby smss d asocos his Court, in Raesh umar Dewangan . e Life Iihgmn'c Corporation of India & Others", held that “the petitibnetid‘es‘ko‘ acuire an indefeasible right t0 be_app0inted 0n te post 0 Assistan pua b i a i h ti e. ’ Ay tes ho haVe been givn appointment from he i i ateory It is not the case of the petitloner that there was an 1stn or arbitrariness as the candidates appomted were abov he petitioner from the waiting list and not on any oter extraneous os1dation Thus, no fault can be found With the responent g e f h s n p i i ntied to an relief 10 diied.“ 1 1N orer trstg