'^)\ C^ )^^ XNTNE UtfiH COURT <MP CHMATriSfiARH BXLASPUR WRtT PETmON fS^ N0- L\<5^5' Qp 2008 PETITXONER ^^ <A ^^i .^\"y <^""^''' ..>"' ^>^:. ^•••- RESPONDENTS 5 Kaushat Chandrakar/ S/0 Shrt H^rakh Ram Chandrakar, aged about: 39 years, R/0 Warct No.23, Imtihhata, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) VERSUS (1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Education, D. K. S. Bhawan/ Manferalay, Raipur, Dtstrict" Raipyr, (C.G.) ^" (2) The ControHer, Chhattidgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur, Oistrict Raipur, (C.G.). ^" (3) Chief Executive Officer, Dtstrict Panchayat, Mahasamund, Oistrict- Mahasamund, (C.O.) (4) Coltector, Mahasamund/ District Masamund/ (C.G.) (5) Oistrict Educatton Officer, Mahasamud, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.). ^ WRIT PETTTION U/A 226 OP THE CONSnTTUTION OP INDIA ^SBBglfe HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 4525 OF 2009 PETITIONER Kaushal Chandrakar RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 1st day ofApril, 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made an application for selection and appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade - I. After the selection, a list of selected candidates was published on 30-5-2008. Thereafter, one more list was published on 2-6-2008 (Annexure - P/2) wherein the name of the petitioner was at S.No.15. The candidate just above the petitioner i.e. Shivendra Chandrakar was called for counseling against the reserved quota of Other Backward Class (for short "OBC"). He did not appear in the counseling, thus the petitioner ought to have been considered for counseling and appointment. In spite of the fact that one seat remained vacant against the reserved quota of OBC, the respondent authorities have not taken any steps to appoint the petitioner against the said seat before expiry of the validity period of the waiting list i.e. 30-6-2009. Shri Tripathi further submits that the petitioner was given oral assurance that he would be appointed. Thus, the present petition seeking a direction to the ^ AP^ L ^ 1 respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and appoint him against the av&ilable vacancy in OBC category. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that after taking the vacancy of the previous year as vacancy for the next year, subsequent advertisement has been published for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-1 (Zoology), though no date has been specifiedby the respondents. 3. There is no dispute that the fresh recruitment process for the next year has already been initiated. Thus, the vacancy, which according to the petitioner was available before June, 2009 must have been treated as vacancy for the next selection process. 4. It is well settled principle of law that the vacancy not filled up in the selection process, if remains unfilled in the preceding year, except in SC/ST, category, the same is treated as vacancy for the next selection process. Thus, at this stage when the vacancy of preceding year has already been taken into consideration in the subsequent selection process, the same cannot be held that the vacancy is still available. 5. Be that as it may, it is well settled principle of law that a candidate, being in the select panel/waiting list has no vested right to get appointment to the post in spite of existing vacancies. (See Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Amrik Singh and Others1). 6. In Union of India and Others v. Kali Dass Batish and Another2, the Supreme Court observed that "mere inclusion of a candidate's name in the selection/waiting list gave him no right, and if there was 1 (2003)108cc 136 2 (2006) 1 SCC 779 8. 9. 10. no right, there could be no occasion to maintain a writ petition for enforcement of a non-existing right." The Supreme Court in Rakhi Ray and Others v. High Court of Delhi and Others3, obsen/ed as under: "24. A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. The vacQncies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate. In the instant case, once 13 notified vacancies were filled up, the selection process came to an end, thus there could be no scope of any further appointment." This Court in Rajesh Kumar Dewangan v. The Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others4 held that "the petitioner does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed on the post ofAssistant pursuant to his selection" and that "no direction can be given to issue appointment letter to the petitioner though he has come out successful in the selection process" Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, this petition is meritless and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. ___- Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 3 (2010)28cc 637 4 2007 (3) MPHT 22 (CG)