.^••-•^^ ^fc^^ .••^€^^^^ ^ ......s <AN?,S/^ f^".-... ..^^\^^ ^^ ^"y e^z. v^y' IN Tlffi^HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. S. N0.^^/2009 (S.B.) SINGLE BENCH .PETITIONER /:. Nirakar Dansena S/0 Neelamber Dansena, aged about 24 years, R/o Kiritmal P/o Kondtarai, Bhupdeopur, tah-Kharsia, Dist - Raigarh, (C.G.). VERSUS pr?QSPONDENTS €^" 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secreiary Department of P.W.D, DKS Bhawan^ Raipur (CG). 2. Chief Engineer P.W.D departinent Bilaspur^ Distt. Bilaspur (CG). S, Executive Engineer P.WoD», Department Bilaspur^ Distt - Bilaspur, (CG). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. n HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition JS} No. 6994 of2009 Petitioner Nirakar Dansena Versus Respondents State of Chliattisgarh & others WRIT PETFTON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: HonT^le Shri Satish K. AgmhotriJ.) Shri Ravi Kuraar Bhagat, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the respondents, 1. Heard, ORDBR (Orall (Passed on this 8th day of December, 2009) The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his case for appoiutinent on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) in the PubUc Works Departnient, as per his serial nuniber ia the waitiag Mst. The indisputable facts, in brief, are that pursuant to the advertiseinent dated 13.11.2008 fhe petitioner appUed for the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) in Piiblic Works Departnient. The written examination was conducted by the Chliattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur on 6.1.2008. After exaDiination the petitioner secured 407th rank in general categoiy and 163rd rank iii the OBC category. The petitioner did not fiad place in the select Ust; however his name was kept at serial No.20 ia the waitmg list of OBC categoiy dated 23.1.2008 (Annexure P/4). Thereafter, the appoiatmeut order dated 13.10.2008 (Annexure P/5) was issued for 18 candidates from OBC category. According to fhe petitioner, out of 18 persons, three persons did not joni their duties on the post of Sub-Engin.eer (CivU) froni the OBC categoiy and as such the petitioner ought to have been appointed on the post. Thus, the petitioner submitted a representation (Aimexure P/7) for consideration ofhis case for appointment on the post ofSub-Engineer (Civil) as two posts are still vacant. Leamed counsel appearmg for tiie petitioner subinits that iii view of the above, the respondents laay be directed to issue appointjnent order to the petitioner, for whom post is vacaiit ia the OBC category. Law on appointment jGrom waitmg Ust is well settled that fhe persons ia the waiting Ust do not acqiiire any indefeasible right for 6. 8. 9. Thakur appoiatraent on the posts for which they participated ia the selection process. Aduiittedly, the petitioner was not iu the raain select list, It is for the einployer either to take persons from the waiting Ust for appoiataaient or to hold a fresh selection for vacaat posts. It is not a case of the petitioner that he was in the select Ust. Even otherwise, it is not a case where the juniors to the petitioner have been appoiated and seniors have been left out. The waiting Ust was pubUshed on 23,1,2008, In normal course the waiting list is not kept alive after a period of one year; tfiough it is not iadicated ixi tlie present case asto what was the period prescribed for keeping the waitiiig list ahve. In the case ou hand, admittedly the petitioner was ia the waiting list. The petitioner has not fumished any material on record, pomting out discrmiuiation, arbitrariness, warrantmg iaterference. In noriaal course, the petitioner has no indefeasible right to appointment even after bis selection. This Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 2057 of 2008 (Khirodhar Singh Vs, State of Chhattlsgarh & others), relyiag on vadous decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that "It is torite law that a caadidate, even tf, she is successful in the select Ust, has no iadefeasible right to appointnient. If the petitioner has no iadefeasible right to the appointoaient, no writ can be issued directing the respondents/autfiorities to give appointoDient to the petitioner or any other persons". Further, this Court in Rajesh Kumar Dewangan Vs. The Life lasuraace Corporation of ladia fis others1 held that "the petitioner does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed on the post of Assistaat pursuaat to his selection^ and that "no direction can be giveu to issiie appointraent letter to the petitioner though he has conxe out successful ia the selection process." In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is disraissed. No order asto costs. _———— Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ' { 2007 (3) M.P.H.T. 22(CG))