mfgwf/h nas*~’a §§5wiE gw$3? IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETmON (S) No. é©<8S /2009 s.B. / PETITIONER : 1 Hori Lal Sahu, S/o. Lalji Sahu, ageg about 35 years, R/o Vill. Mujgahan, P.O.- Loharshi, Teh f ..& District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 Rajendra Kumar, S/o Ramadhun Chelak aged about 27 years, R/o Uslapur, Post Sambalpur, District Dhamtari (cg) VERSUS / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTlTUTlON OF INDIA RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Schedule Tribe and Schedule Caste Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. Controller of Examination Chhattisgarh Vyavshaik Pariksha Mandal, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) I, 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Q% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 6085 0f2009 v Hon' Lal Sahu 8L another Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh 8:. Others PETITIONER (Wn't petition under Article 226 of tho Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Ms Sudha Agalwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the respondents] State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 24th day of October, 2009) Heard. l. The petitioners, by this peh‘tion, nray for issuance of a direction to the respondent—authorities to undertake, counseling of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade— III, from Arts subject. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure P/ 1) issued by the respondent-authorities the petitioners along with other candidates applied for the post of Shiksha Kamn' Grade —— III. Thereafter, the petitioners along with some other candidates were kept in the waiting list. The concerned authorities have undertaken counseling of some persons for the Science subject but the petitioners have not been called for counseling as yet. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners were placed in the waiting list in Arts subject. No list has been annexed to the writ petition to show that the petitioners were kept in the waiting list. Assuming that the petitioners were in the waiting list, no person from the Waiting list has been chosen for counseling as well as for appointment. Thus, there is no arbitraiiness. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. \ g4 5. In Ludhiana Central (to-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Amrik Sing}: and othersl, the Suprenm Court obssrved’ that “even orhemrise, it is well settlsd by now that a person whose name is said to fmd place in a selsct panal/waiting list has no vested right to get appoiateci to the post in spite of vacancias existing”. 6. In Union of India and others Vs. Kali Dass Batish and anotherZ, tha Suprems Court observed that “mere inclusion of a candidate’sname in the selection/waiting list gave him no light, and if there was nought, them could be no occasion to maintain a Wait petition for enforcement of a non-existing right” . 7. This Court in Tikelal Sahu & others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh 85 others { W.P.(S) No. 5547 of 2009 }, relying on van'ous decisions of the Supreme Court held that “Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand Where the petitioners claim right to appointment, on the basis of their names, being in the waiting list, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself? (See K. Jayamohan vs. $tate of Ketala and another3 Rajesh Kumar Dewangan v. The Life Insurance Corporation of India 85 Others" ). 8‘ Applying the well—settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. tr Sd/- t: Satish K. Agnihotrlé I g Judge Thakur 1 (2003) 10 SCC 136 z (2006) l SCC 779 ° AIR 1997 SC 2619 4 2007 (3) MPHI 22 (CG)