SHIV KUMAR TIWARI Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners, on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III and to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioners. Further, a direction to the respondent No. 1 to make enquiry against the respondent No. 3 for his illegal, arbitrary and malafide action.

(2.) THE facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners are that in pursuance of the advertisement for selection on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, the petitioners herein applied for the same. A written examination was conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board. THE petitioners were found successful as their names were shown in the merit list of Science and Arts category. A notice for counseling for appointment on 75 vacant posts in Science discipline and 15 posts in Arts discipline was issued in the newspaper. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared in the counseling held on 03.02.2011 and 04.02.2011 before the respondent No. 2. However, no appointment was made thereafter. THE petitioners have filed a list (Annexure P/5) which according to them was obtained by taking photograph through their mobile phones. Being aggrieved, the petitioners made a representation to the respondent authorities as well as the Minister for Panchayat and Rural Development but nothing had been done till date.

(3.) IN Jai Singh Dalal & Others v. State of Haryana & Another, wherein similar facts were under consideration, the Supreme Court observed as under: "7. IN a recent decision in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of INdia the Constitution Bench of this Court reiterated that even if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do not acquire any indefeasible right to appointment against the existing vacancies. It was pointed out that ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. The State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies by appointing candidates selected for that purpose. Albeit, the State must act in good faith and must not exercise its power mala fide or in an arbitrary manner. The Constitution Bench referred with approval the earlier decision of this Court in Subash Chander. Therefore, the law is settled that even candidates selected for appointment have no right to appointment and it is open to the State Government at a subsequent date not to fill up the posts or to resort to fresh selection and appointment on revised criteria."