^^^^^^S^tll i^e<3,i 3S3sVc\ @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR rC.G.) W. P. No. /-t^3> /2006 PETITIONER '^(="> i,-^- Kumar Channe, age about 44 yr. ^^f\^suna^. -.••*.',^*~ S/o Bhaurao Channe, Mess Servant ..^c'.' y.'?^5?-''' -.•••"* Government 100 Baded Hospital Korba, ".^y ...•••'' —•-•••••-•- --- —— ..—^.—. .-.—, />^fy./-"'" Distt-l<orba .^y ^•"'M^-5'" VERSUS RESPONDENTS : /^l. <A 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- Its Secretary Ministry of Health, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Medical & Health Officer Govt. Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Memorial Hospital, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Medical Surgeon, Government 100 Baded Hospital Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) WRXT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION QFXNDIA" 11 s:l :r ) AF^ 3S7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASNJR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHQTRL.L Petitjoner WRIT PETLTIONN0.1283_OF2Q06 Sunil Kumar Ghanns versus Respondents : State of ChhatUsgarh and othera Present : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for the pefitioner. Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. QRDER sih (Passed on 18" Day of January, 2007) Bythis petition, the petittoner Impugns tto oider datsd 24- 7-1992 (Annexure P-8), whereunder the appointment <rf the petiUoner was not permitted. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the peUtioner was initially appointed as Mess-Servant at Coltector's rate from Contingency Fund for a period of 89 days by order dated 27-1-1988 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, the appointment o( the petftioner on the post of Mess^ervant for 89 days at Collector's rate was changed and converted to appointment on regular basis bycMderdated21-3-1^8 (Annexure P-2). While woridng as Mess-Servant, according to the petiUoner, he applied for fresh appointment on tti®post dt Lower Dwision Clerk. The peBBoner was appointsd as Lower Divlsicm Cterk by the Chief Medical and 1-tealth Officer, Bilaspur wde order dated 10-7- 1992 (Annexure P-7). The peUtioner was declined joining at 100 Bed Hospital, Korba vide order dated 24-7-1992 (Annexure P-8). 3. Being aggrieved, the petiUoner filad an application, being Original Application No.3143 of 1992, before Madhya Pradesh AdministraCve Tribunal. On dissotufion of the State Admlnistrath/a Tribunal, Original Application No.3143 of 1992 was transferred to High Court of Madhya Pradesh and numbered as Writ Petition No.7^5 of 2003. The petffioner withdrew the saidwrit petifion on 6-12-2005 wi liberty to file a fresh petitjon beforethis Court. Accoidingly, this pettion is filed. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for tha petWonerwoukl submit ttiat the petih'oner was appointed in accordance witt law on the basis of proper setecb'on and deniat of Joining is bad as the petittoner has acquired right to the post on bel(^|- setected on ttie post of Lower Dwision Clerk. Leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioner would further contend that the peb'tionerwas not afforded any opportunify <rf hearing before the impugned order was passal. He would furtter submit that the impugned order dated 24-7-1992 (Ann®a»reP-8) be quashed and the peUtioner be granted posting from the dErte of hte selecUon byorderdated 10-7-1^2 (Annexure P-7>. 5. Leamed counsel appearing for the Stsrte/respondente would submit that ttie appointment of the petitioner was not in 'ST accordance wtth the rules as ftamed under tt»Provtso to Article 3TO of the ConsUtution of India. The appointment of the petitioner is govemed under the Madhya Pradesh Publfe Health and Family Wetfare (Directorate of Health Servtces) Class III Mini^erial Service Recruitment Rules, 1989 (henceforfc the Rules, 1889'). The pet'rtioner was not selected by a selection committee as prescribed under Rule 1 1 of the Rules, 1989. The appointment of ttie peSUoner was done by respondent No.2 without followtng the proper procedure of law. 6. Having heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the pleadingsand the records appended thereto, B is apparent that the appointment of the petitioner was not (n acconlance with law as there was no seteetion commlttee and a list of selected candidates was also not published. It appeare that Ure appointeient of the petitioner was lone appointment. Thus, the Assistarrt Givil Surgeon rightly dectined to permit the petitioner Joining the hospital at Korba. 7. On the basis of selection, even if, it is done in accordanTO with law, the petffioner cannot claim right to the post, as ft is well setNed in a catena of decisions of theSupreme Court. 8. In the case <rf Shankarsan Dash vs. Unlon of ladia1, it was hetd by the Supreme Court ttiat "it is nct corrert to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and %lequate number of candidates are found frt, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasibte rightto be appointBdwhich cannot be legiBmrtely denied". •^— a^-^~:--,---^y? 9. It was subsequently fotlowed in Ludhlana Central Co- operative Bank tM. vs. Amrik Singh and other^, wher®nit was held by the Supreme Court that "even otherwise, it is well settl«lby now that a person whose name is sakl to find place in a select panel has no vested right to get appointed to ttw fwst in spite of vacancies existing". 10. Further in Unlon of India and othws vs. Kall Oass Battsh antt afwthep, the Supreme Court held that "mere inclusion <rf a candidate's name in fte selection list gave htm no right, and if thwe was no right, there could be no occasion to maintain a writ petition for enforeement of a non-existing right". 11. In the facts of the present case, even the appointment of the petitioner is not in accordance with law. Thus, the petftioner has no indefeasible right to the post of Lower Dwision Clerk and there is no scope of affording any opportunity of hearing when tfte peUConer has not acquired any right to the post. 12. As a resultand forthe reasons stated hereinabove, Uite petih'on !s dismissed. No order as to costs. -— Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge Gopal 1 (1^1) 3 SCC 47 2 (2003) 10 SCC 136 3 (2006) 1 SCC 778