/. ZT& IMRi £• ^GII IN THE HIGH^OJJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl NO.^3-5 OF 2011 PETITIONERS : Satyendra Kumar Sharma, S/o Raghuvar Prasad Sharma, aged about 28 years, R/o village Keshgawana, Post Sonhat, District Korea (CG). Deepak Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Shri Chandra Pratap Gupta, aged about 35 years, R/o Baikunthpur, District Korea (CG). Ku. Madhu Dubey, D/o P.N. Dubey, aged about 22 years, R/o village Keshgawana, Po'st Sonhat, District Korea (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the . Secretary, Department of Panchayat SE Social Welfare, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). t^ 2. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur, through its Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal Parisar, Pension Bada, Raipur (CG). 3. Collector, Korea (CG) . 4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Korea (CG). 5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, SonJ-iat, DistrictKorea(CG). sft-. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .Jl.. *»>. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 795 OF 2011 Satyendra Kumar Sharma & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri B.D.Guru, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 28th day of February, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent authorities to issue appointment orders in favour ofthe petitioners for their appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-111. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 5.10.2009 (Annexure P-2), the petitioners applied for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-111. After scrutinizing the application forms, the petitioners appeared in the written test as well as in the counseling. The names of the petitioners were kept in the waiting list and the said waiting listwas valid for a period of one year. Thereafter, the period of waiting list Vi/as extended for a period of subsequent one month by lette-r dated 6.1.2011. Thus, the validty of the waiting list has been over on 7.2.2011. In spite of the said fact and in view of the availability of number of posts, the appointment orders are not issued in favour of the petitioners. The impugned action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners also made several representations before the respondent authorities, but till date the same have not been considered and decided. Thus, this' petition. " 4. It is a trite law that a person whose name appears in the select/wait -list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. !^-;, •S' Gowri 7. 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 vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate. The identical issue came up for consideration before this Couri: in Rajeshwari Rathore & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and other connected matters, in which this Court after considering the various provisions and the decisions of the Supreme Court held as under: "26. It is true that the appointment of the candidates cannot be denied on the basis that the candidates who are in the select/waiting list have no indefeasible right to appointment. Denial of appointment should not be unfair, unreasonabte or ma/a fide. 27. On considering the above-stated facts, which have been proved that the appointments could not be made on account of genuine and fair difficulties. Thus, it cannot be held that the appointment was not made on account of unfair, unreasonable or mala fide reasons." Admittedly, within the validity period of the waiting list, no appointment could be made. Now the validity period is over. The petitioners have neither pleaded nor established by clinching documentary evidence that the State has acted unfairly, unreasonably or with mala fide and also there is no grievance that any other person who is down below the petitioners in the list has been appointed. Thus, the petitioners have failed to make out the case for any direction in the light of well-settled position of law, as aforestated. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petiton is liabte to be and is hereby dismissed. ——.^- ~ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge '/'• r ' WP.(S) No. 4522 of 2009 (decjded on 28-2-2011)