Petitioner challenged failure to issue appointment order despite being in selection list due to departmental error regarding higher-ranked candidate's joining. Court held no indefeasible right existed and dismissed writ petition.
Writ of mandamus dismissed sans merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 880 of 2012
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, D.K.S Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, CG
2. Commissioner, Department of Urban Administrative & Development, Directorate, Raipur, CG
3. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Tumgaon District Mahasamund, CG
---- Respondents
CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate For State/ Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy GA For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, appears on behalf of Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board
06/02/2024
1. This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of the letter dated 11.07.2011 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.3 by sending 9th list of the appointment on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) in Nagar Panchayat, Tumgaon, District Mahasamund, in which, the petitioner was placed at serial No.4.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2010, the C.G Professional
2
Examination Board has initiated a selection process for the post of SubEngineer (Civil) and thereafter, result was declared and the petitioner was declared as successful. Thereafter, the order of appointment was issued by respondent No.2 from time to time. In the 9th list vide order dated 11.07.2011 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner was also to get appointment order for the said post, but the respondent No.3 has not issued any appointment order and the petitioner came to the notice of the letter (Annexure P/1) dated 11.07.2011 only on 23.01.2012 and thereafter on 24.01.2012 he approached the respondent No.3 and submitted an application and requested to allow him to join his duties and at that juncture, the petitioner further came to the know that one another person namely, Prakash Ranjan had already been appointed by respondent No.3
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2 by canceling the earlier list published the 9th list and sent to respondent No.3 to issue appointment order. Thus, the act of respondent authorities is not issuing the appointment order is arbitrary. Learned counsel prays for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that as the respondent authorities have not placed the appointment order issued in favour of Prakash Ranjan, therefore, it is not clear that which was the last date of joining given to the said candidate.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in the order of merit, the petitioner stood much below than the said Prakash Ranjan. The name of the petitioner appeared at serial No.187
3
whereas, the name of Prakash Ranjan appeared at serial No.170. From the affidavit dated 29.09.2021 which was filed in compliance of the Court’s direction dated 16.09.2021, it is clear that respondent No.2 had issued Order No.4368 dated 09.06.2011 and directed the Chief Ministerial Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Tumgaon District Mahasamund to issue appointment order in respect of Prakash Ranjan and last date for appointment order was 25.06.2011 (Annexure D/A).
5. Pursuant to such direction, the said authority had issued the appointment order dated 20.06.2011 and said Prakash Ranjan joined on the post of Sub-Engineer, Tumgaon on 11.07.2011 (Annexure B). The respondent No.3 had not intimated the fact of joining of said Prakash Ranjan to respondent No.2, therefore, inadvertently the order dated 11.07.2011 (Annexure P/1) was issued to the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Tumgaon.
6. It has been further mentioned that all the 139 posts of the Sub-Engineer have been advertised by the department, the selected candidates has already given their joining at their respective places and there is no vacant post. Learned counsel for the respondents would further submit that it is well settled that even a candidate placed in the select list has no indefeasible right to get appointment. He would place reliance on the judgments in the matters of East Coast Railway & Another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Others, (2010) 7 SCC 678 and Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association Vs. State of Gujarat & Others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 .
7. Replying the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the
4
respondents have no bearing in the present case as the same relates to the validity of the select list.
8. Heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.
9. It is well settled that the candidate does not acquire any indefeasible right to the post, merely because he has appeared in the examination or his name finds place in the select list. In the instant case, there is no such issue. It was only due to an inadvertent error on the part of respondent No.3 in not communicating the joining of the candidate Prakash Ranjan, who was higher in the merit list and placed in the 7th list, miscommunication (Annexure P/1) dated 11.07.2011 has been issued by respondent No.2. By such order, no right accrues in favour of the petitioner to get appointment on the said post.
10. In the matter of East Coast Railway & Another (supra), the following observation was made in para 14, read thus:-
“14. 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.”
11. Further, in the matter of Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers’
Association (supra), the following material observations were made at para 8, read thus :-
“8……………..But once the selected candidates join
5
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.”
12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, as the selected candidate has no indefeasible right to get appointment merely because his name was found in the select list and considering the facts of the present case and the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the opinion that present is not a fit case where Writ of mandamus can be issued in favour of the petitioner.
13. The present Writ Petition sans merit is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge
Priyanka
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a candidate placed in a select list acquires an indefeasible right to appointment.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to an appointment order when a higher-ranked candidate had already joined.
Whether writ of mandamus should be issued to direct issuance of appointment order in favour of petitioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
East Coast Railway & Another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & OthersReferred¶31
East Coast Railway & Another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Others, (2010) 7 SCC 678 · Who else cites this
Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Association Vs. State of Gujarat & OthersReferred¶33
Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Association Vs. State of Gujarat & Others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 · Who else cites this
Rajesh Kumar Singh
State Of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development
Commissioner, Department of Urban Administrative & Development
Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Tumgaon
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
