^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA IVIISHRA. & HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ Appellant Petitjoner Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. WritADpealNo.44 of 2007 Bhagwan Singh Rajpoot, S/o Shri Lal Bahadur Rajpoot, aged about 27years, R/o Village Sardha, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) Collector, Bitaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) District Education Officer, Bilaspur (CG) Block Education Officer, Lormi, District Bilaspur Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, District Bilaspur (CG) Present Smt. Hamida Siddiqui. counset for the appellant. Shri UNS Deo, Govt. Advocate forthe State. ORAL JUDGMENT (17th March, 2010) PerDhirendra Mishra. J This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 5th December, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No.148/04 whereby the petitioner's writ petition for compliance of the order dated 9th January, 2003 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, recommending appointment of the petitioner as Contract Teacher, Class-11, under Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur, has been dismissed. From perusal of the order dated 9th January, 2003, we find that there was no appointment order issued in favour of the petitioner. Considering this aspect, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with the following observations in para-9 of the impugned order: "9. In the facts of the instant case, the petitioner was noi in the select-list However, 0/7 account of cancellatton of the recruitment from the sefect-!ist, the candidates including the petltioner from the waltfng"lfst were recommended by the Chief Executive Offscer, District Panchayat Biiaspur to the Chief 2 \ Qp Executive 0 cer, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi. It is admitted fact that no candidate fromthe waiting-list was apfwinted to the post. Discrimination by appointing on the basis of pick and choose or ajuntor was appointed was neither alieged in this petition norit is the case ofthepetitioner" We are entirely in agreement with the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge, as mentioned above, for dismissing the writ petition. There is no substance in this appeal, the same deser/es to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ' ¥1