^ ^: IJU.I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU_R Writ Petition fS) No. 2057 of2008 PETITIONER : Khirodhar Sineh aged about 28 years S/o Shri Ranmatli Singh, R/o Block Colony Kunkuri, Post+Tah. Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chliattisgarh, through Secretaty, Tribal Welfare Depai-tment, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur(CG). 2. The Director, Paiichayat and Social Welfare Raipur. 3. The Collector, Jashpur (CG). 4. The Block Education Officer Block Kuiikuri, Distt. Jashpur. 5. The Chief Executive Offieer, Janpad Panchayat Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (CG). 6. Jagdish Prasad Yadav S/o Aiiant Rani Yadav, ViU+Post Kaliba, Tahsil Kunkuri Distt. Jashpur (CG). (•WRIT PETI7TON UIs.'DER AR-HCLE 226 OF THE CONSTirLTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnilioti-i. J.) Present : Shi-i Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate fbr the petitioner, Shri Ari.in Sao, Go-vt. Advocate forthe State. ith (Passed on 24"' day ofMaireh, 2099) Wifh the consent oftlie parties, the matter is taken up for hearing fmally. 1. The petitioner, by this.petition impugns the order dated 28.01.2008 (Annexure P/5), whereby the Collector has rejected fhe represeiitatioa of the petitioner, holding that the petitioner is not entitled fbri appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, and farther a direction to the responderrt. to issue appomtment letter in favour ofthei petftioner. J.BB 13&. Jjn e-^ifc j^q'ifti^ ^fe ay ^fay^ y» l Ihty bS^ildS Ub j&jyteriB i£lh $; liltfeiugu^ ^fe 90'01'9Z IMS |ljy» l»cblh«i!»|t|> (}.%(-% 1 ^ Ufy V^K &h lalli& ^jljn Itfe jifc jpny !adB j^. £ti fcfc^UB ^ue ^ aiy us^sy .y» l ^ IP^? ea'sr ads te§' Ssl&S. A6 1 ^ UiJi. Utesy h-1hie ^fc &h Inlkfi ^ ?•?) Ir i!h InMI' ^ ^ U^ fey^UA Kta Inirtfi I<fe ^ js^. ^ ajy ^fajAjgy y» .!?»!"! Xlt Ial5^11 i5fe J.KA JuUtfi tA J|^h fc^US lisL& }>1ftlftl" mii&fa. ij^iy/i ;,3fp(|» ^ fafej* ^ JUlA<fe& ^ jp<ri<t>yir?,. :jspun s-e psAjssqo ssii.iuitiiog sqj^ -jsuoiiipd sqi.jo SSBO sqtjo uoitEmuxexs-sj jcg psTOi}suoo SBM ssniuiiuoo B '90/SfrOfr 'ON. (S)'<I'A\ ui pssrod '(z/j sjnxsuav) LOOZ'ZO'SO psyep jspjo sip o^ tirensjnd •$ 'III 3PB-10 IIIUB^ ^qssgqs jo isod sip uo iiisuiimoddB .ioj pspii.us lou si jsuoiiipd sq^ fev^ gmppq jsuoitiisd sqi. jo uoiiBiusssjdsj si{}. psysabi SACT{ ssiiuoipnB yispuodssj sq^ '(^/j sjtKsuuv) SQOC'IO'SZ uo •s'i affep sures sip. HQ "9 'ojs>[ luspnodssj sqi ueqi s5[jBiu jsqSiq ps.ioos peq sq ^ift gmms ('AIIOO ^/d •;? £/Jsjnxsauv) 8DOZ'IO"8Z "o .^dsj/uoi^usss.idsj siq psniuiqnsJsuoi'i.iisd sqj. -Xidsj srq inuqns 0} SQOZ'IO'frI psyap jsn.31 spiA uodn pqpg SBM jsuoiiipd sq^. 'jsgBsjsqj, ••[7 f •{9Q/6Z.6£'ON(S)'<I'M} 900Z'80'80 psi'ep tepjo sip HI apwa uoipsjip jo iijgi; sip m jsuoppsd Slp. JO 9SB3 SIp. SUIUIBXS-SJ Ot jndqsBf 'JtOp3l{OQ 81? gUIpSJIp uoi^sd sip jo pssodsip '^OOZZO'SO PS^P ^pw spiA 'ijnoo siqj. •£ •Viavaysioddv jo noi^ipom'o s^y. SuSys^v^o 'yQ/^Q^ •ojs[ (s) •e['AV Suisq 'uoiiiisd IUM B ps.ysjsjd ssppipuBO pspsps jgq^o qtiA^uo(B jsuopipd stp 'jsyssjoiyL '900Z'LQ"10 ps^p jspjo spiA sspuoipn'e luspuodss-i sip. .<q pSlpOUBO SBM 1SI{ UOI}3S{9S sioqM siy^ 'III 9PV:tO TUUE'S BIIBS?IIS jo }sod sqi. uo p3ps{ss Acpisnbssqns PIIB IH spviQ IUUB^ Bqs-siiqg jo pod sqi jq; p8i[ddB jsuogipd sip. 'tBi^ SJB (pqsinu m sp-ejjsuq sqj. "g Wffsrasre -fi T.rragr ^S ^-Rft 11 'tneiRqiR ^ <6 gfRffl apqaff w ^a arfSft? gra» ^wr: PIMI^I'! t- cFf (ya) 55-29 SRTCftRT 'g^ti 56.69 <ft 1^twr ftre w ~^a aiftfti gra; 48-89 'etfn 11 ^ff tRg gfi&t! srRtRf ^ SfRfe giq> q?q ?t4 ^ *l'i"l W&tlpbl'i/R^Rd ^t 41^1dl '•l€F sRtft t!" 6. Once the case of the petitioner has been examined twice over, averments of leamed counsel for the petitioner fhat non-appointment of tlie petitioner tantamount to arbitrariness and um'easonableness, is without any basis and vague, as ffae petitioner has failed to prove from any angle tiiat the petitioner was entitled to mteiview and appointment thereafter. 7. It is a ti-ite law that a candidate, even if, she is successful in the select list, has no indefeasible right to appointment. Iffhe petitioner has no indefeasible right to the.appoiatment, no writ caii be issued du-ectin^ the respondents/aufhorities to give appointment to the petitioner or any otlier persons, 8. In fhe matter of Ludhiana Central Co-aperdtive Bank Ltd. v. Ariwik Siitgh and Others , it was held by the Supreme Court that "eveii othei-vvise, it is we!l settled by now fhat a person whose name is said to find place in a select panel has no vested right to get appointed to fhe post in spite ofvacancies existing." 9. Further, in the matter of Unwn of India and Others v. Kali Ddss Batish andAnother^, the Siipreme Court held that "mere inclusion :of a eandidate's name iuthe selection list gave him no right, and iffhere was no ri^it, there eould be no occasion to maintain a writ petition for eaforcement ofanon-existingright. 12003 (10) SCC 136 2 2006 (1) SCC 779 • EB' f?Li?» Sphu '<.. lO.This Court, in the matter of Rajesh Kuntar Dewangan v. The Life Insurance Cwporation ofliidia& Others held that "the petitioner does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed on the post of Assistant pursuant to his selection" and that "no direction can be given to issue appointment letter to fhe petitioner though he has come out successful in the selection process. " «/ 1 l.For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition stands dismissed. No order asto costs. ':"Sd/-[ . Satish K.Agnihotri 2007(3)MPHT22(CG)