Chattisgarh High Court
Dularwa Khuntey & 9 Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh & 5 Others on 23 October, 2010
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION S No 343 of 2008
Dularwa Khuntey & 9 Others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & 5 Others
...Respondents
! Shri SN Nande Advocates for the petitioners
^ Shri MPS Bhatia Dy GA for the Staterespondent No1& 2 & None for the respondent No 3 to 6
CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J
Dated: 23/10/2010
: Judgement
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 23rd day of October, 2010) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
1. By this petition, the petitioners seeks a direction quashing the letter dated 29.12.2007/01.01.2008 (Annexure P/1) whereby the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh, was directed to cancel the counselling for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, which was scheduled to be held on 14.12.2007.
2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.03.2007 (Annexure P/3), the petitioners alongwith others made applications for selection and appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III. The petitioners were placed in the waiting list and counselling was decided to be held on 14.12.2007 (Annexure P/6). A select list of 94 candidates was prepared and out of which, 54 candidates appeared and participated in the counselling. Thereafter, appointment orders were issued to all 54 candidates, but 50 candidates joined their posts and four seats remained vacant. As a sequel, the petitioners who were in waiting list were called for counselling which was scheduled to be held on 14.12.2007. In the meantime, the new rules viz. the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment & Condition of Services), Rules, 2007 came into force w.e.f. 29.11.2007. Thus, the counselling scheduled to be held on 14.12.2007 was cancelled vide the impugned letter dated 29.12.2007/01.01.2008 (Annexure P/1). Thus, this petition on the ground that the decision of the respondent authorities is discriminatory, arbitrary as the petitioners have acquired indefeasible rights to appointment after having found their names in the waiting list, as vacancies were available.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are entitled to the appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, as they were in the waiting list and they were further called for counselling which was to be held on 14.12.2007. However, the same could not be held on account of arbitrariness of the respondent authorities.
4. Shri Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3, would submit that it is well settled that even if a candidate finds his name in the select list, it does not give him indefeasible right to appointment.
5. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3 to 6. However, the respondents, vide their return dated 03.03.2009 would submit that due to enforcement of Chattisgar Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment & Condition of Services) Rules, 2007, the counselling scheduled to be held on 14.12.007 was cancelled. The petitioners have not acquired any right to appointment merely on the ground that they were called for counselling.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
7. This Court, on 17.01.2008 directed that the vacancies available pursuant to the advertisements dated 08.03.2007 may not be filled up till the next date of hearing.
8. It is a trite law that a candidate, even if, he is successful in the select list, has no indefeasible right to appointment. If the petitioner has no indefeasible right to appointment, no writ can be issued directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner or any other person. (See Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Amrik Singh and other1 and Union of India and others v. Kali Dass Batish and another2).
9. The ratio laid down in the cases, as aforestated, has been reiterated in Rakhi Ray & Others v. High Court of Delhi & Others3.
10. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand wherein the name of the petitioners found place in the waiting list, thereafter no appointment could be made on account of the letter dated 29.12.2007/01.01.2008 (Annexure P/1) whereby the counselling which was to be held on 14.12.2007 was cancelled, there is no infirmity or illegality.
11. In light of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, and for the reasons stated in Shashi Bhushan Patel & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others4, pronounced today, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
12. No order asto costs.
JUDGE