^\p} IN THE BIGff COIIRT OF CBHATTISHGARH AT BILASPCR W.P. 1+8 2004/< PETmONER Bhagwaa Siugh Rsgpoot s/o Shri Lat Bfa^ur Rajpoot^ Aged about 24 years, Resi. OfVfflage Sardha, Tah. Lonni, Distt. - Baaspur(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS —1.State ofChhattish^rfa, tfarou^i .^e .^~ ..A^* ..!^^ •:"s3ii^ Secretary Paachayat aiid Social <^^^^ wl&rc departmect DXS. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G). 2. CoUector Bilaspur , Distt. Bflaspur (C.G.) 3. District Education ofBcer Maspur(C.G.) 4. Blocfc educatitm Officer Loimi, Distt.Bilaspur(C.G.) 5. Cfaief Execute officer , Janpad Panchayat Lomu Bilaspur(C.G.) WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTCLES 226^27 Distt. TBE IfflMIIT CONSTTTUTION OF ESIHA IN THE NATURE MANDAMUS AND CiaEtTIORARl. (1) • are shown in Ihe cmse title PARTK'CLARS ABOUT TBE3RESPONDENTS: Thedet®teoffheS£sp<mdentareshOwniniHiecfflisetitle. Ar^ w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASMJR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLEMR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTR1. J. WRIT PETITION N0.148 OF 2004 Petitjoner Respondents versus Bhagvran Singh Rajpoot State ofChhattisgarh and ottiers Present : Mrs.HamidaSiddique.counsetforthepetitioner. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govemment Advocate for respondents No.1to4. Mr. Arun Sao, counsel for respondent No.S. :th ORDER (Passed on 5m DayofCtecember,2006) By this petitwn filed under ArScles 226/227 of ttie ConsUtution <rf India, the petifloner seekscomptlanceof ttie order dated 9-1-2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Chief ExecuUve Officer, District Panchayat; Bilaspur recommending the appoitrtne^rt^the peUttoner as Contract Teacher Class-lt under the Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, District Bilaspur. 2. The peUttoner telongs to handicapped category. Pureuant to anaA/ertisement, heappliedforandappearedforttietest and interview for appointment to the post of Contract Teacher qass-11 under the JanjMd Panchayat Lormi, DistrictBilaspur. Accordingito the petitioner,anirr^ularifywaseommittedinselectionofaiecandidates w for ttie said appoinbnent Thesaid irregulartty in the selection proeess was enquired into by the District Education Offieer, Bilaspur. The Chief Executive Offlcer, District Panchayat, BHaspur, by letter dated 9-1-2003 (Annexure P-1) addressed to the ChieT Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Lormi, communicated that thsre vrasan irregularity in ttie setect-list of Contract Teachere Class-11 as reservatfon roster was not fottowed correcUy. Accordingly, it was directed to cancehthe appointment on the basis of the select-list and appoint seven other candidates ineluding the petiUonerfrom the waiting-list. 3. Pursuant to that order, the Chief Executive Offieer, Janpad Panchayat Lormi cancelled the earlier appointment on the basis of the select-list, but did not appolnt any candidate from the waffing-list. '•V. 4. Mrs. Hamida Siddlque, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that once the appointment of the candidatss on the basisofthe setect-list has been cancelled, the petitioner, being in the waiUng-list, has right to be appointed as Contract Teacher Class-11. Accordingly, this petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus/direetion to tt»e r^pondents to issue appointment order in favour ofthe petitioner. 5. Mr. Sushil Dubey, leamed Govemment Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 and Mr. Arun Sao, learned counsef appearing for respondent No.5 would submit that ttie petitioner has no right to appointment on the basis of hls name found in the waiting-list. Secondly, the letter dated 9-4-20(0 (Annexure P-1) of the ehief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Bilaspur addressed to ffiie Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Lorrni is not bmding and does nat confer any right on the petitioner to seek appointment on the post of Contract Teacher Class-tl. 6. Having heard teamect counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the pleadings and Uie records appended thereto, it is evident that initially the petiUoner's name was in ttie waiting-list. Since the appointment of selected candidates in the merit-list was cancelled on the ground of violation of reservation roster, the pedtioner cannot claim appointment to the post of Confract Teaeher Ctass-11 as a, matter of rlght on the basis of the letter dated 9-1-2(X)3 (AnneKure P-1) of the Chief ExecuUve Officer, District Panctayat, Bilaspur. 7. It is welt setUed prtncipleof lawthat the candidates, on their selection, do not acquire any right to the post under the retevant recruitment rules and the State is under no legalduty to fill-upany of the vacancies. {SeeShankarsanDashvs.Umon oflndia). 8. In K. Jayamohan vs. Stete ofKerala and anotfre/2, the Supreme Court observed in para 5 as under:- "5. It is settled legal posiUon that merely because a candtdate isselected and kept in the waiting list, he does not acquire any absotute right for appointment. tt is open to the Govemment to make the appointment or not. Even ifthere is any vacancy, is not incumbent upon the Govemroent to fill up the same. But the appointing authority must glve reasonable explanation for non- appointment. Equalty, the Public Service 4-- Commission/recruitmwit agency shalt prepare waiting list only to ttie extent of anticipated vacancies. In view of the above setUed legal position, no error is found inthe judgment <rf the High Courtwarranting interference" 9. tn the facte of ttie instant case, the peUtioner was not in theselect-list. However, on account of cancellation ofthe recruHment from ttie setect-list, the candidates including the petitioner from the waiting-Iist were recommended by the Chief ExecuUve Officer, District Panchayat, Bilaspur to the Chief Executive Otficer, Janpad Panchayat Lormi. It is admitted fact that no candidate from ttie waiting-list was appointed to the post. Discrimjnation by appointing on ttie basis of pick and choose or a junior was appointed was neither alteged In this petftion nor it is Vhe case of the petitioner. 10. Forthereasonsaforestatedandinviewofthewellsettled principleof law that the setectee has no rightto tfte post, this petition is dismissed. No order as to eoste. Sd/'- Satish K. Agiiihotri ^Opal 1 (1991) 3 SCC 47 2 AIR1997SC2619 [f\-^—^^ ji,;,ii;^^i