^ l snS [E«IGaxX>t?KF©P.mE»€AT0RgOP€HHA'ITISGARH ATBIIASB.IR Sxft EtetaKHi (Si N0. S^AS PETFTIONER e^^" ^M^' l' ../-•c^>y ^••' Ashofe Kumar Tandon, S/o Late Puran Lal Tandon, Aged aBout 38 years, R/o ViHage Kosain&hunta, Post, ©anoud,Via Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) «.°•"'^'y (^ RESPONDENT VERSUS ^ II C&hattisgarh Professional Exasiiaatioa Board, C-168, Tafgore Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2) State of Chhattisgarh Through Seeretary Pane&ayat & Rural Devefopinent D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur {C.G.} 3j The District Education Officer, Raipur Dastriet Raipur fC.G.) 4^ Chief Executive OfBcer Jaapad PaneSayat Arang, District Rajpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITlOirONDBRARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA T&e petitibner most humbly and respectfeHy begs to submit as imder: o- c^* IIK HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA&PUR WRTT PETmON (S) No. 5699 of2009 PETITIQNER RESPONDENTS Ashok Kumar Tandon. VERSUS ClAattisgarh Professional - Examination Board & Others. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrmTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asmhotri, J. Present: SliriC.R.Sahu,Advocateforthepetitioner. Shtri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents.2&3 Ajnit ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 06th day ofOctober, 2009) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that fhe petitioner is in the waitinglist at serial No. 265, offhe respondent No. 1 for selection to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III. Shri Sahu farther submits that 1Q1 posts are still vacant after appointing a!l the candidates from the select list. Thus, therespondents may be directed to appoint the petitioner on the vacant post. 2. On query, asto whether any person who is down below the petitioner in the waitine list has been appointed leaving the petitioner, Shri Sahu fairly submits Ifaat no person from the waitinglist has been appointed. 3. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that mere selection does not confer any right on a candidate for appointment. Eyen otherwise, the petitioner has not been selected as admittedly, his name did not find place in flie select list. He is in the waitine list and that too, much down below and no person fi-om the waiting list has been appointed. Thus, no direetion can be issued to the respondent-aufhorities to appoint any person from the waiting list as it is not a case ofdiscrimination or arbitrariness. 4. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Satish K. ^iuhori-i Judge