Ishwar Sharan Gupta vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—By this petition, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of the order dated 15.02.2012 (Annexure P-1), whereunder, the validity of supplementary select list was not extended and also order dated 27.01.2012 (Annexure P-2), whereby, the extension of period was not extended after completion of one year six months validity period of the select list. The facts, in brief, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.04.2008 (Annexure P-3), 74 posts were advertised for selection and appointment on the post of Additional District Prosecution Officer, which was subsequently increased to 99 posts by way of addendum dated 29.08.2008. The petitioner was successful in the process and was placed at serial No. 8 in the waiting list. Though the waiting list was not issued when the main select list was published on 05.05.2010 (Annexure P-4). The period of validity of the select list was initially one year i.e. from 05.05.2010 to 04.05.2011, thereafter, it was extended by three months till 04.08.2011 by letter dated 03.05.2011 (Annexure P-5, page No. 30). Pursuant to the extension of time, a supplementary selection list of 07 candidates was issued and all the seven candidates declined to join the office. On 03.11.2011 (Annexure P-6), a second supplementary list was published, wherein, the name of the petitioner was also in the list. In total, as many as 09 candidates declined to join the service. Pursuant to the second supplementary list dated 03.11.2011, the petitioner was required to join before 04.11.2011, as according to the respondent authorities there could not have been extension for more than one year six months from the date of first publication of the select list i.e. 05.05.2010.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no delay or default on the part of the petitioner. The supplementary list was published only in 03.11.2011 and, as such, the petitioner cannot be deprived of appointment on the basis of his due selection in accordance with law.

On the other hand, Shri Minhaj, learned State counsel, submits that the validity period has already come to end as 18 months have already expired. The validity period of one year can be extended only by six months not thereafter. The seats, which could not be filled up on account of expiry of the validity period, have been taken in the process of fresh recruitment.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that for want of approval from the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, the period of validity could not have been extended though the request was made by the State. Learned counsel further submits that since the second supplementary list was published only on 03.11.2011, wherein, the name of the petitioner found place and also vacancy was available on account of non-joining of the candidates, the validity of the list was valid for a period of 12 months and thereafter, by extension further six months.

I have learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

The indisputable facts, as afore-stated, are that it is also not denied by the learned counsel for the respondents that the second supplementary select list was published on 03.11.2011. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was in the waiting list, but the same was not published at the time of publication of the main select list and the appointments made on the basis of first supplementary select list could not be filled up as many as 09 candidates declined to join the post.

Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, without making averments with regard to reckoning of the period of validity in the petition, submitted in his written statement that the reckoning of the period would start from the date of publication of second supplementary waiting list. Thus, the second supplementary waiting list was valid till 2.11.2012. There is no quarrel on the issue raised by the petitioner, as it is well settled principle of law. (See: Sheo Shyam and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, ).

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, since specific averment to the above extent was not in the writ petition, therefore, there was no opportunity to the respondents to advert to the same. Even otherwise, in the case on hand, the seats, which could not be filled up pursuant to the examination held on 24.8.2008, have been included in the subsequent recruitment process, which had already been begun. (See: Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Vs. Chand Behari Kapoor and Others, , Chandigarh Administration Vs. Laxman Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., , Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others Vs. Jyotish Chandra Biswas, & B.S.N. Joshi and Sons Ltd. Vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd. and Others, and the decision of this Court in Dakshin Purva Madhya Railway Mazdoor Sangh (Regd. No. 79) v. Union of India & Others WP (L) No. 1532 of 2008 (deiced on 26-10-2009) & other connected matter).

It is a trite law that the candidate does not acquire any indefeasible right to the post merely because he has appeared in the examination or even his name found a place in the select list. This is also not a case where a candidate below the petitioner in the select list or waiting list, has been appointed. Thus, it cannot be held as illegal, arbitrary or unreasonable.

In Sheo Shyam (supra), the Supreme Court opined as under:

...Undisputedly, appointments were made till the end of 2001. Therefore, it would be proper to reckon the period from the last date when the recommendation was made. But another situation has developed subsequently....

The Supreme Court in East Coast Railway and Another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others, , observed as under:

It is evident from the above that while no candidate acquires an indefeasible right to a post merely because he has appeared in the examination or even found a place in the select list, yet the State does not enjoy an unqualified prerogative to refuse an appointment in an arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit of the candidates as reflected by the merit list prepared at the end of the selection process. The validity of the State''s decision not to make an appointment is thus a matter which is not beyond judicial review before a competent writ court. If any such decision is indeed found to be arbitrary, appropriate directions can be issued in the matter.

The Supreme Court in Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers'' Association Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, held as under:

...But once the selected candidates join and no vacancy arises due to resignation etc. or for any other reason within the period the list is to operate under the rules or within reasonable period where no specific period is provided then candidate from the waiting list has no right to claim appointment to any future vacancy which may arise unless the selection was held for it. He has no vested right except to the limited extent, indicated above, or when the appointing authority acts arbitrarily and makes appointment from the waiting list by picking and choosing for extraneous reasons.

Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand that all the remaining seats, which are unfilled, had been taken into consideration by including the same in the subsequent recruitment process, no writ can be issued. As a sequel, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.