T ^. ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETITION CS) No. 2088 of2009 PETmONER : Dhannendra Kumar Nimialkar, S/o Shyam Lal Nmnalkar, aged about 35 years, R/o Lormi, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) RE8PONDENTS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Departmeiit ofPaiichayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2- Tlie Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur 3. The Chief Executive OfFicer, Janpad Panchayat Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aiiiuhotri, J. Present: Stei Pravin Tulsyan, Advocate for the petitioner, Smt. Sniita Ghai, Panel Lawyei' for the StateA'espondeiits 1 and 2. ORALORDER (Passed on 22nd day of April, 2009) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks a writ/direction to quash the order dated 24.09.2008 (Annexure P/5) whereby the appointment offhe petitioner on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III has been cancelled on account ofthe fact that the petitioner did not have the Higher Secondary Examination Pass Certificate. Shri Tulsyan further submits that since the petitioner was pemiitted to appear in the examination ofB.A. Part III course, on the basis ofDiploma Certificate in Electrical Engineering obtained from M.P. Board of Technical Education, BhopaL the same is equivalent to Higher Secondary Examination Pass Certificate. 2. Smt. Ghai, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents 1 and 2 submits that fhe requisite qualification for appoinlment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III is Higher Secondary Examination Pass Certificate, not any equivalent certificate. Admittedly, the petitioner is not in possession of Higher Secondary Examination Pass Certificate. Thus, the petitioner is not qualified for being considered for appointment on the post of Shiksha Kamii Grade III, even if he has obtained graduation degree in Arts from Gum Ghasi Das University. Thus, the decision of the respondent authorities is just and proper and needs no interference. 3. Shri Tulsyan further submits that there 1s violation of Article 311 ofthe Constitution oflndia. There is no question ofviolation ofArticle 311 of the Constitution as the petitioner could not have been selected for want of requisite qualification. The petitioner does not have basic qualifications for appointment even ifhe has passed in tlie selection test conducted by the Board. 4. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. It is a trite law that a candidate, even if, he is successful m the select list has no indefeasible right to appointnient. If the petitioner has no indefeasible right to appointment no writ can be issued directmg the; respondents to give appointment to the petitioner or any other person. (See Ludhiana Central Co'operative Bank Ltd. v. Amrik Singh and othe^ and Umon oflndia and others v. Kali Dass Batish and anothe^). 6. Recently, in S.S.Balu and another v. State ofKemh and others, the Supreme Court has observed fhat a person does not acquire a legal right to be appointed only because his name appears in the select list. 7. Even otherwise, it is an admitted position that fhe petitioner has not acquired the requisite qualification as required for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III. Further, the petitioner has failed to establish that the Diploma in Electrical Engmeering is equivalent to that of Hi^hier Secondary Examination Pass Certificate. Mere appearing in the selection process does not confer any right on the p^titioner to be appointed on the post ofShiksha Karmi Grade III. 8. Applying the well-settled principles oflaw to the facts ofthe case and in view ofthe foregoing, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Amit Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge ! 2003 (10)SCC 136 22006(1)SCC779 3 (2009) 2 SCC 479