HIGH BOURT OF CHHATTHSGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (Si No.3396 of20$7 PETITiiDNER Pyareiai, aged about 35 years, s S/o. Atmaram By caste Gond, Rlo. viiiage Dhandongri, Post Patpar, Tahsii Dengargarh, Dist Rajnandgaon. Versus RESPONDENTS 1) 2). 3) 4) The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Ministry of Panchayat . and Sooiai Weifare Department. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. Deputy Director, Panchayat And Ssciai Weifare, Rajnandgaon. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. Dongargarh, Dist. Rajnandgaon. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dhandongri, Tahsii Dongargarh, Dist. Rajnandgaon. Hire Lai‘ Sio. Deenuram, R/o. Viitage Dhandongri, Tahsii V Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon. (Writ Petition under Articie 226 and 227 of the Constitution of indie) SB: Hon’bie Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present: 5) Shri Pareg Kotecha. counsei for the petitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate fer the State. ORDER (Passed on 11th Juiy, 2007) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made an appiication pursuant to the advertisement for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi. The name of the petitioner was approved by Gram Panchayat as well as by Gram Sabha, Dhandongrt, Tahsii Dongargarh. Dist. Rainandgaon, in resoiution dated 25-10—2035. Despite the resoiut‘ion passed by the Gram Panchayat recommending the name of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi, no apgeintment order has been passed tiii date. Now, Panchayat is proceeding for making appointment of Panchayat Karmi afresh, without passing any order in favour of the petitioner. it was next contended that the petitioner has reasonable apprehension that the Panchayat may invite appiications for fresh appoint on the post of Panchayat Karmi without compiying with the eariier recommendation of the Gram Panchayat for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi. 2) it is trite law that even if the petitioner acquires the requisite qualification, he has no indefeasible right to be appointed except in case of arbitrariness or irregularity like junior has been appointed and the petitioner has been left out. tt is not the case in the present petition. 3) On the basis of selection, even if it is done in accordance with law, the petitioner cannot claim right to the post, as it is weit settled in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. 4) in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of india’, it was heid by the Supreme Court that “it is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successfui candidates acquire an indefeasibie right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied”. 5) It was subsequently followed in Ludhiana Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Amrik Singh and othersz, wherein it was held by the Supreme Court, that “even otherwise, it is weii settled by now that a person whose name is said to find place in a selected panei has no vested right to get appointed to the post in spite of vacancies existing“. l \ r . l l l ‘(199n 3 scc 47 2 (2003) 10 SCC 136 --3. " a“( , 5) Further, in Union of India and others Vs. Ka!i Dass Batish and anothera, the $upreme Court held that "mere indusion cf a candidate’s name in the selection list gave him no right, and if there was no right, there could be no occasion to maintain a writ petition for enforcement of a non-existing right”. 7) Since the petitioner has no right to the post, thus, no writ or direction can be issued in exercise of its discretionary iurisdiction under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india, to the respondents No. 3 and 4 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi. 8) There is no merit in the case. The petition is dismissed accordingiy. i Sd/- 1 ‘: Satish K.Agnihotri : Judge 3 (2006) 1 SCC 779 ’\. .@