Kaushal Chandrakar vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made an application for selection and appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I. After the selection, a list of selected candidates was published on 30-5-2008. Thereafter, one more list was published on 2-6-2008 (Annexure P-2) wherein the name of the petitioner was at S. No. 15. The candidate just above the petitioner, i.e., Shivendra Chandrakar was called for counselling against the reserved quota of Other Backward Class (for short "OBC"). He did not appear in the counselling, thus, the petitioner ought to have been considered for counselling and appointment. In spite of the fact that one seat remained vacant against the reserved quota of OBC, the respondent authorities have not taken any steps to appoint the petitioner against the said seat before expiry of the validity period of the waiting list, i.e., 30-6-2009. Shri Tripathi further submits that the petitioner was given oral assurance that he would be appointed. Thus, the present petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and appoint him against the available vacancy in OBC category.

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submit that after taking the vacancy of the previous year as vacancy for the next year, subsequent advertisement has been published for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I (Zoology), though no date has been specified by the respondents.

There is no dispute that the fresh recruitment process for the next year has already been initiated. Thus, the vacancy, which according to the petitioner was available before June, 2009 must have been treated as vacancy for the next selection process.

It is well settled principle of law that the vacancy not filled up in the selection process, if remains unfilled in the preceding year, except in SC/ST category, the same is treated as vacancy for the next selection process. Thus, at this stage when the vacancy of preceding year has already been taken into consideration in the subsequent selection process, the same cannot be held that the vacancy is still available.

Be that as it may, it is well settled principle of law that a candidate, being in the select panel/waiting list has no vested right to get appointment to the post in spite of existing vacancies. [See : Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Amrik Singh and Others, ]

In Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Kali Dass Batish and Another, , the Supreme Court observed that "mere inclusion of a candidate''s name in the selection/waiting list gave him no right, and if there was no right, there could be no occasion to maintain a writ petition for enforcement of a non-existing right".

The Supreme Court in Rakhi Ray and Others Vs. The High Court of Delhi and Others, , observed as under:

A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. The vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate. In the instant case, once 13 notified vacancies were filled up, the selection process came to an end, thus there could be no scope of any further appointment.

This Court in Rajesh Kumar Dewangan v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. 2007(3) M.P.H.T. 22 (CG), 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".

Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, this petition is meritless and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.