w^7^.'- ^ t^\ 90 IN THE HON'BLE HIGHCOORT OF CHHMTISGARH /VT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRFT APPEAL N0. A^O OF 2010 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS .A^i^ '<A.vfilft-^\9--"" s.\.- .^ 0.^%?'^ ...'o^^^-'" ^-•^'w ^•^r . .^:" <^"' s^ ./•" .y:"'^ m3^ A-^'^ Pranay Verma, aged abdut 29 years, S/oShri S.K. Verma, R/o Torwa Gurunanak Chowk, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS ^ .- : . . ' ! . 1. State of Madhya Pradesh, ThrougM: the Secretary, Land revenue Departmeht, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ : ' : . 2. The Commissioner, Land Record, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) t^' —. - . . ... . .' _ - ; . 3. TheSuperintending LanaRecord, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^^ ' ! ! ' 4. The Collector (land Records), Bilaspur (C.G.) 5, Ajay Kumar Soni, S/o Ayodhya Prasad Soni, aged about 28 years, R/o Lormi, Tahsil Lormi, DiStrict Bilaspur (C.G.) WRFT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2, SUB-SECTIONflV OF THE CMHATTISGARH HIGH COURT fAPPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHV ACT,2007 mGHGOURTOE'GimA'niSGARHAT APPEa&LANT WRlTAP]PEAENi».l960E201(y Prahay yemia . 'Versus' ",: :':" .' RESPONDENTS State ofMadhyaPradesh DB:-H@N'BI^SHBI3.M.©UI3IWSI& HON'BI^SaRI^Mft<3d9ilWJ^,JJ PRESENT:- :.:.:-:: ,.. • - . , , . ;•:;.,,. ! : : ^ :. ShriPrakasKMishra.Advocateforthe appellant. ' t • '••'•." ' . .. •;. "".•;. ORAL ©RDKR ,/.(28-6-20'l0)::';.-"; '.:' .;'•': ;:: . ...^? 1. This writ appeal has beeri filfid agairist the order dated 5-S;- 2010 j?assed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) NSi. • 511372008. '. •:,:• .:; ,:". 1- ,. ,.1 .•^, '.• ^ 2. The writ appellant was kept in the waifmg tist of ^electioir held foi- the ^ three posts were tQ:1:>e| fUled up and aU the 33 posts were fiUed up from^^^&^ selection Ust. Howevef, two carididates didnpt turn therefbre, two pefsonS trom the •waiting list were given appointnient. Smee^ the^^a^ the waiting lisf, theFefbre, he was not giv^ Subsequently»after one year of seIeGtipn, one candidate wtio was in service tendered .his Fesignatioh. The writ appeUant claims that on. this ^^an<y, he Should have fe •appointment. ,; • ! •:•. ::•.;-... ., • : :- : '':,":1' ' ,li. 3. The. above^contention iappears jto be wrong as the vacancy arises on tendenng resignatiori by a Candidate after one^y from]joining service, wUl be a'fresh^ v coimtedtowards'tlievacanc^isftbeyear^^ exarciiriatiph was lield. As soon as the pei-spn joias on ^th^ post,; thevacaficyi^ i^ated^to'be^^^ '' a^eQant was wjt^^^^^ !-"-•; ^ arbitrariness or illegality can be said more so when life of the waiting list came to an end after expiry of one yeeu- from fhe date of preparation. Therefore, we are not incUned to interfere in the impugned order, rather uphold the same. 4. Therefore, the writ appeal is misconceived and the same is dismissed. Sd/- I.M. Quddusl Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge ^ ^ liftj^'NiSI'S'!. '.^^•a-as