7 L § $ing!e $mmh A Q1: 13w] IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (s) No. 5"? L! % /2009 /wTikelal Sahu aged about 21 years, S/o Petitioners l Trilochan Sahu R/o Village Navagaon, PO Sildihi, Block Pithora, Distt‘ Mahasamund 2 Ku. Gitanjali aged a bout 22 years, D/o Ashok Bhoi, R/o Village Saripali, Post Baroli, Vikaskhand Basana Distt. Mahasamund 3 Virendra Kumar Kar aged about 21 S/o Fakir Charan Kar, R/o Village Navapara Post Baloda Tah. Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund Shabir Barik aged about 29 years, S/o (A‘ Sadanand Barik, Village Morgaon, Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund ,v» Kheraj Pradhan, aged about 29 years, S/o Kamdar Pradhan, R/o Village Mohgaon, Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund V Shivnath Patel aged about 24 years? S/o Bansilal Patel, R/o Village RB Chief Main Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund Tarun Pradhan aged about>22 years, S/o Baharul Pradhan, R/o Dhodharksar Post Sildihi Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund Gulab Pradhan aged a bout 25 years, S/o Hemraj Pradhan R/o Village Dodardihi Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund Viyas Badai, aged about 25 year, S/o Karoti Badai, R/o Bodardihi, Pithora Distt. Mahasamund 10 Vrindavan Baink aged about 23 years, S/o Bimadhar Baink Village Kharidihi 9V, ® Post Kisdi Tahsil Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund 11. Kumari Bai Bariha aged about 23 yeérs, D/o PhOOlsingh Bariha R/o Saguntap, Post Sankara Distt. Mahasamund 12/Girdhari Patel aged about 23 years, S/o Baratram Patel R/o Inderpur Post Sildih Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund 13JArjon Bhoi aged about 27 years, S/o Karunakar Bhoi Village Sitapur, Post Jagdishpur, Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund yfv Ajay Bhoi aged about 29 year, S/o Virendra Bhoi, R/o Panordih Post Jagdishpur Thana Basana, Pithora Distt. Mahasamund li/Rohit Kumar Nanda, Aged about 25 years, Ravilal Nand R/o Kesaripur, post Sildihi, pithora Distt. Mahasamund Versus Respondents irw The State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Panchayat and Rural Department, D.K. S. Bhawan, Raipur ’2’,“ Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund 3. Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat, Distt. Mahasamund fl The Collector, Mahasamund WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As Stated in the cause title I 62W AFK HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.5547 OF 2009 PETITIONERS Tikelal Sahu & Others Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the petitioners. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. 5 w 0? > Q/ WWI RESPONDENTS ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 23rd day of October, 2009) 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. The petitioners, by this petition, pray for issuance of direction to the respondent—authorities for grant appointment to the petitioners to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade — lll, Janpad Panchayat Pithora, District Mahasamund on the ground that they are in waiting list. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent-authorities the petitioners along with other candidates applied for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade — lll. Thereafter, the petitioners along with some other candidates were found selected in the selection process. The authorities issued the appointment orders in respect of some candidates, however, the selection process has been cancelled after receipt of some complaints and the services of the appointed candidates have also been terminated. Being aggrieved by the said action, some candidates approached this Court and pursuant to the orders passed by this Court they have been reinstated. However. in spite of the fact that there are several posts lying vacant, the respondents are not issuing the appointment orders in respect of the present petitioners, who were in the waiting list. The ‘petitioners have made several representations, but the appointing authority must give reasonable the explanation Public for non-appointment. Service Commission/ Equally, 7/; legal position, no error is judgment of the High Cou interference“. pursuant to his selection” appointment /etter to the petitioner though he has in the selection process.” subbu and that “no direction can be given to issue come out successful 10. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand where the petitioners claim right to appointment, on the basis of their names, being in the waiting list, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the mot itself‘ ion stage sw- Satish‘K. Agnihotri .«mdge' l 5 2007 (3) MPHT 22 (CG) above settled found in the rt warranting v»