wW IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.s.No. \73\3 OF 2011 PETITIONERS . 1 PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 WRIT @gw é? Ram Ratan Napit S/o Shri Sita Ram, R/o N—12, R.D.A. Colony, Tikarapara, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Laxpati Prasad Patel aged about—31 years, S/o Shri OF THE z CONSTITUTION OF INDIA é>..=:’§"\“f’ Rabhubansh Prasad Pat61, aged e My about‘26 years, R/o P.S.C. Colony, f??? near Hanuman Mandir, Raipur ‘g I Distt. Raipur (C.G.) a? k <z~' Q' e? VERSUS L RESPONDENTS /1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Agriculture Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.). Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board through Mamaging Director, Telibandha, GE. Road, Raipur ‘l (C.G.). W ‘ Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ‘WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 1293 OF 2011 PETITIONERS Ram Ratan Napit & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satieh K Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri MK Sinha, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy. Advocate General forthe sate. .i RESPONDENTS ORDER ORAL (Pessed on this 9 day of March, 201 1) By this petition, the petitioners seek a' direction to he respondent No.2 to select the petitioners on the post of Peon, on the ground that the petitioners after selection had appeared before interview and thereafter, without assigning any reason, the petitioners have not been selected. The second ground raised by the petitioners is that the seleotion process should be quashed, though there is no ‘ questionare to quash the selection processon the ground that the apportionment of marks are not in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court and thirdly, outof four seats reserved for women candidates, five candidatesmave v l been selected, which is also illegal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, mere selection of' five candidates against four posts available for appointmentyby‘ho‘stretoh of imagination, can be heldaas ‘ illegal,asfs“e’lectiondoes not mean; appointment. >""‘ltis‘~‘a good 9-1 practice, to hve' a. “select. list. 9fm9re99ra9ns; 8° mahfsome .....\...\. \........ l- ashok ’ “39002)6SCCI27 g}... > _ 2 I; i. persons out of the seiect list failed to Jom the next person W can be appomted 4. The second contention that there was an irregularity in allocation of marks, that cannot be challenged at this point, as the petitioners have participated in the selection process and after having failed in the examination, the petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the selection process. lt is not necessary to assign reasons in not selecting the candidate for appointment. ln ChandFa Prekesh Tiweri and others Vs. Shekuntcle Shukleé- and others’ the Supreme Court in.pa‘r'a‘"32' held as under :- 2......It Is remedy whlch stands barred and rt u rs m this perspective In Om Prakesh Shukla v '" Akhrlesh Kumer Shukle e threenludm Bench of thrs Court lard down rn no uncertam terms that when a candidate appears at the t examrnetron Without protest end subsequently found to be not successful m the Vexaminetron, question of entertaining a petition challenging the said examination would not arise”. 6. For the reasons recorded hereinabove and more so that the petitioners, after having appeared in the written as well as interview do not acquire any indefeasible right to apppinhnent. Thus, there is no merit in this petition. 7. Accordingly. the writ petition is dhmisse‘d. Wy/Anwm. w h. 7v- Sci/— SATtSH K. ANGNIHORI Judge "