/ wizg, §§§§E Eifa‘éi CDIERT DFJDDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT EILAsggg $§ngie$en§$ 009 S .B . Writ Petitiau S 1N0. £314 3 PETITIONER ’Satish ’Kumar Tandon, Aged about 35 year’s, S/o Late Puran Lal Ta’n‘don , R/ o Village Kasaiflkhuflta, Post Gan'oud, Via Arang, District’Raipur (C.’G.’) VERSUS ESPONDENT 1) State ofChhattisgarh R Tl$ugh Secretary Panchayat & Rural Development and particularly Rural Engineer’mg D.K.S.Bhawan Rajpur, District Rai‘pur (C.G.) 2) The Executive Engineer Rural Engineering Service, Development Commissioner Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.’) / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION ‘O‘F INDIA The petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under : 1)’ PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERz— As stated in cause title above. % 2 AFA’ 7j ‘71)]; k gi§.?.o? HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.5543 of 2009 Petitioncr Satish Knmar 'l‘andon Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh 8r, another WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shn' C. R. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn' P. Ki Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. ORDER (Oral) (Passed on this 25m day of September, 2009) Heard. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the. petitioner had appeared in the Rural Engineering Services Sub Engineers (Civil) Recruitment Test, 2008, which was conducted , by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board. The result of the examination was declared on 16.7.2008, wherein the petitioner obtained 087.88% marks. According to the petitioner, there were total 253 posts of Sub Engineer (Civil) in Rural Engineering Services, out of which four posts are still vacant. The petitioner was in the waiting list at serial No. 53 and up to the candidates placed at serial No. 49, has already been appointed. Thus, the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner and give him appointment. The petitioner has not hled any document to indicate that he was in the select list. Even otherwise, it is not a case where the juniors to the petitioner have been appointed and seniors have been left out. The select list was published on 14.7.2008. In normal course the waiting list is not kept alive for more than one y‘q/ year, though it is not indicated in the present case asto what was the period prescribed for keeping the waiting list alive. In the case on hand, it is not clear that the petitioner was in the selected list or in the waiting list. According to the petitioner he was in the waiting list. 3. The petitioner has not furnished any material on record, pointing out discrimination etc., warranting interference. In normal course, the petitioner has no indefeasible right to appointment even after his selection. This Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 2057 of 2008 (Khimdhar Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others), relying on vaiious decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that “It is trite law that a candidate, even if, she is successful in the select list, has no indefeasible right to appointment. If the petitioner has no indefeasible tight to the appointment, no writ can be issued. directing the respondents/authorities to give appointment to the petitioner or any other persons”. Further, this Court in Rajesh Kumar Dewangan Vs. The Life Insurance Corporation of India 65 others1 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 the petitioner though he has come out successful in the selection process.” 5. In the present case the petitioner was not even in the select list and he was in the waiting list. No junior to the petitioner was given appointment, as he was in the waiting list at serial No. 53 ‘ 1 {2007 (3) M.P.H.T. 22(QG)} and only up to serial No.4 candidates in the waiting list could be appointed. In View of the above, tha wn't péiition is dismissed. r Sd/- ; satish K. Agnihatri 9 ‘