AF^ fy^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILA8PUR Petitioner Writ Petition No. 937 of 2001 Ku. Sita Garhewal, D/o Sukhnandan Ram, R/o Bhatapara (Janjgir) Tah Distt. Janjgir Champa. Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Collector, Korba. Onkar Prasad Sahu, S/o Samaru Ram Sahu, R/o Korsi, via Kharod, Distt. Janjgir-Champa. Paduman Pandey, S/o Prahlad Pandey, Seoni (Janjgir), Distt. Janjgir-Champa. WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Honl3le Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Ms Meera Jayaswal, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDER (Orall (Passed on this 29th day ofJuly, 2009) 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide intimation letter dated 23.2.1999 (Annexure P/l), the name of the petitioner was sent through the Employment Exchange, Korba for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III. The news item (Annexure P/2), was published in daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar dated 22.3.1999, in this regard. The recruitment process was initiated under the special-drive for recruitment on various posts, reserved for the scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, scheduled caste women and scheduled tribe women, candidates, which remained vacant on account of non-availability of candidates. The selection was made through inter^iew. Name of several persons, including the petitioner, were recommended for appointinent. This was a special-drive to clear the backlog on account of non-availability of candidates in the general selection method. The petitioner, being scheduled caste faced the interview successfully and her name appeared at serial No.2 in the main select list for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III. Without assigning any reason, though some persons from the select list (Annexure P/2) were appointed, the petitioner was not appointed. In the meantime, it appears that two persons i.e. respondents No. 3 and 4 from the general category were appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III on compassionate basis. It is found that the fact was brought to the notice of the State Government. The Under Secretary, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Backward Classes and Minority Welfare Department, State of Chhattisgarh, by letter dated 18th May, 2001 (filed as Annexure P/7 in W.P. No. 331/2002), addressed to the Collector, Korba, objected to the action that the appointment of the general candidates on compassionate basis, reserved for six selected candidates from the scheduled caste category, was unconstitutional. The select list was prepared under the special- drive to clear the backlog of the vacant reserved posts. The letter dated 18th May, 2001, reads as under: " vt4<1<h1 I^T ^ ^ET ^" ^^ t f^ f^?N vf^ airi^raT-T ^ ?rscT aiTT^ sTRT ^ 1999 ^" Kt"ft<ic|l'<T ^T xpFT ^? Pt^Rvl ^^PT ^t ^ aft 1 ^^T "'ff^'Er ^' ?TRFT ^ STR ^' ?[? dPTT ^TqT t l^ 3)^'q,rcl<l urrRr ^ 6 ^i^iPid ^^4lc;cii^T ^t ^T? ^^ ^? Pi^f^i ^ ^ ^ t ^ f^ ^^T TT?Y ^t ^^PqT Pi^Rvi ^ gr?r ^T^T cr^ff ^ irdT q^? f^piT 1rrar vjft f^ f^hr '»TdT ^Tf^raT-T ^rf^TT-r ^ Rsidilfr t i ^rRT: ^ii^^ii^i^ Pt^Ria t ^f) ^f ^J^^ ^i^iPla 6 Ki*41<!c|i^T ^f f^T^ ^' f^rT T^¥ ^R Pl4^1^+ll< Pl^f^l ^T^T-T ^^ ^t 4?|4c|l^ ^? ^t ^ 4?l4c||^ ^ ^TTFT-T ^t ^T^II^ny 3RFraT <fr^l;t ^T ^se: ^' | ?? Despite the letter dated 18th May, 2001, it appears that the Collector, Korba did not take any action and the petitioner remained un-appointed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition on 31.5.2001. In normal course, the petitioner has no indefeasible right to appointment even after his selection. This Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 2057 of 2008 (Khirodhar Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 8& others), relying on various decisions of HonlDle Supreme Court, held that alt is trite law that a candidate, even if, she is successful in the select list, has no indefeasible right to appointment. If the petitioner has no indefeasible right to the appointment, no writ can be issued directing the respondents/authorities to give appointment to the petitioner or any other persons??. Further, this Court in Rajesh Kumar Dewangan Vs, The Life Insurance Corporation of India & others1 held that "the petitioner does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed on the post of Assistant pursuant to his selection?? and that (<no direction can be given to issue appointment letter to the petitioner though he has come out successful in the selection process." But in the facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein the special-drive was undertaken to fill-up the vacancies {2007 (3) M.P.H.T. 22(CG)} •a "!\>, 4 ,^.,^:<- ^' -^^.....-:^ 8. 9. 10. Thakur of reservred category candidates and the petitioner was one of the successful candidates, there was no reason to deny the appointment to her. The result remained the same as the vacant post remained vacant, which was reserved for the reserved category candidates. It appears that two candidates from general category were given appointment on compassionate basis, which has been found even by the State Government, as unconstitutional. This is a serious matter where rightful claim of a scheduled caste candidate has been denied and two persons from general category have been appointed de hors the constitutional scheme of appointment, without proper selection process. Denial of appointment to the petitioner against the reserve post is unconstitutional and illegal. Having regard to the facts situation of the case and for the reasons nientioned hereinabove, without expressing any opinion on the appointment of the respondents No. 3 and 4, as they have already served on the post for about seven years, the respondents No. 1 and 2/State are directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner, forthwith. The petitioner shall be entitled to seniority and salary with effect from the date of her appointment. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs.10,000/-. The State may recover the cost from the concerned officer, who violated the provisions of Constitution, which enshrines that reserved candidates only must be appointed against the posts reserved for them. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge