Dilip Kumar Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2386 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                             AFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                   Writ Petition (S) No.2581 of 2013

    Dilip Kumar Singh, Aged about 31 Years, S/o­Shri Gopal
    Singh, R/o­Gram & Post­Dhardai, Tahsil­Pamgarh, P.S.­
    Pamgarh, District Janjgir­Champa (CG)
                                                              ­­­­Petitioner

                                    Versus

  1. State of Chhattisgarh, through     Secretary, Technical
     Education & Man Power Planning Department, Mahanadi
     Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Naya Raipur (CG)

  2. Director, Directorate, Employment & Training Manpower
     Planning, Department Women Polytechnic Campus Bairan
     Bazar, Raipur (CG)

  3. Joint Director Regional Office, Industrial                         Training
     Institute, Bilaspur, District­Bilaspur (CG)
                                                             ­­­­ Respondents

For Petitioner : Ms Diksha Gouraha, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr.Animesh Tiwari, Dy.A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board

17/9/2021

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking

appropriate writ / direction claiming that though he was

listed in serial No.1 for the post of Assistant Workshop

(Electrician) in select list prepared on 25.6.2011 and

waiting list prepared on 25.6.2011 for 39 posts, but 15

selected persons have not joined and therefore, the

petitioner was entitled to be considered, but respondent

No.3 did not make appointment of the petitioner.

Therefore, action being arbitrary, appropriate writ /

direction be issued for his appointment. Reply has been

filed supporting the action of respondent No.3.

2. Ms Diksha Gouraha, learned counsel for the petitioner,

would submit that selection was made on 25.6.2011 for

appointment of Assistant Workshop (Electrician), but

select list was published on 25.6.2011 and appointments

were also made on 25.6.2011, but only 24 persons were

joined out of 39 posts advertised and 15 persons did not

join and therefore, the petitioner has acquired a legal

right to be appointed on the said post being candidate of

wait list No.1. Therefore, appropriate writ / direction

be issued against respondent No.3 to appoint the

petitioner on the said post.

3. On the other hand, Mr.Animesh Tiwari, learned Deputy

Advocate General for the respondents/State, would submit

that though relevant rules does not specifically provide

for the period for which the merit list shall remain

valid, but ordinarily the vacancies have to be determined

only once in a year. In absence of any rule, ordinary

period of validity of select list should be one year. He

would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the

matters of State of Bihar and others v. Amrendra Kumar

Mishra1 and State of Rajasthan and others v. Jagdish

Chopra2 to support his submission.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered

their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went

through the records with utmost circumspection.

5. True it is that for 39 posts of Assistant Workshop

1 (2006) 12 SCC 561 2 (2007) 8 SCC 161

(Electrician) the select list was published on 25.6.2011,

out of which, 24 persons have joined and 15 persons did

not join and the petitioner stood at serial No.1 in

waiting list.

6. Admittedly, the relevant recruitment rules do not provide

for validity period of select list. However, The Supreme

Court in Amrendra Kumar Mishra (supra) followed in Jagdish

Chopra (supra) has clearly held that in absence of any

rule, ordinary period of validity of select list should be

one year. In the matter of Jagdish Chopra (supra)

following the decision of Amrendra Kumar Mishra (supra)

held as under:­

"9. Recruitment for teachers in the State of Rajasthan is admittedly governed by the statutory rules. All recruitments, therefore, are required to be made in terms thereof. Although Rule 9(3) of the Rules does not specifically provide for the period for which the merit list shall remain valid but the intent of the legislature is absolutely clear as vacancies have to be determined only once in a year. Vacancies which arose in the subsequent years could be filled up from the select list prepared in the previous year and not in other manner. Even otherwise, in absence of any rule, ordinary period of validity of select list should be one year. In State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra (supra), this Court opined: ((SCC p.564, para 9) "9. In the aforementioned situation, in our opinion, he did not have any legal right to be appointed. Life of a panel, it is well known, remains valid for a year. Once it lapses, unless an appropriate order is issued by the State, no appointment can be made out of the said panel."

It was further held: (SCC p. 565, para 13) "13. The decisions noticed hereinbefore are authorities for the proposition that even the wait list must be acted upon having regard to the terms of the advertisement and in any event cannot remain operative beyond the prescribed

period."

7. Reverting to the facts of the present case and following

the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of

Amrendra Kumar Mishra (supra) and Jagdish Chopra (supra),

it is quite vivid that even if the subject rules under

which recruitment is held do not provide for any validity

period of select list, but in absence of any rule,

ordinary period of validity of select list should be one

year as held by the Supreme Court in Amrendra Kumar Mishra

(supra) and that has been followed by the Supreme Court in

Jagdish Chopra (supra). In the present case, the select

list was published on 25.6.2011 and wait list was also

published on 25.6.2011 and even validity of select is to

be taken as one year in absence of validity period in

applicable service rules that has already been expired on

25.6.2012 and the writ petition was filed by the

petitioner on 22.8.2013, as such, validity of wait list

has already expired and therefore, a writ of mandamus

cannot be issued in favour of the petitioner.

8. Likewise, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in

the matter of Shankarsan Das v. Union of India3 has held

that merely because the candidate is selected and kept in

waiting list, does not acquire any absolute right to

appointment. It is open to the Government to make

appointment or not.

9. In the instant case, the petitioner has even approached

after the expiry of period of one year, as such, 3 (1991) 3 SCC 47

respondent No.3 is absolutely justified in not appointing

the petitioner after expiry of life of select list. I do

not find any merit in this writ petition.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is

hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own

cost(s).

Sd/­

(Sanjay K.Agrawal) Judge B/-