SANJAY RATHORE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P. (S) No. 5069/2010, 6232/2010, 199/2011 and 676/2011 are being disposed of by this common order as the point involved in these petitions is the same. However, for the purpose of adjudication of these petitions, reference is made to the facts mentioned in W.P. (S) No. 5969/2010 (Sanjay Kumar Rathore and others Vs. State of C.G. and others). The facts, in brief, leading to filing of this petition, are that the petitioners applied for selection and appointments on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I, II and III in different Janpad Panchayats, namely Korba, Pali, Podi-uproda, Kartala in District Korba pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent No. 4, wherein the last date for making application was 6-11-2009 and date of examination was 29-11-2009. Thereafter, the petitioners have appeared in the examination and in the result declared they found their names as successful candidates. The petitioners were informed by the respondent No. 5 for counseling and accordingly, they appeared in counseling on 19-7-2010 and produced all the documents for its verification, but thereafter no appointment order was passed by the respondents. The petitioners made representations on 26-8-2010 and 15-9-2010 (Annexure P-5) which yielded no result and thus the petitioners have filed writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to conclude the proceedings of selection and issue appointment orders accordingly to the petitioners, as more than thirteen months have been elapsed.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been found successful in the examination, their documents have also been duly verified and as such, there is no reason to deny appointment to the petitioner's for such a long time. Non-appointment of the petitioners is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 would submit that appointment of the petitioners are governed under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter called 'the Rules, 2007'). Earlier in the year 2009 the examination was conducted by the respondent No. 6 and merit list was prepared. As per clause (xi) of sub-rule (7) of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2007 the validity of selection list and waiting list is thirteen months and since more than thirteen months have passed from the date of preparation of select list, the select list together with waiting list stand automatically expired and thus no appointment could be made on the basis of the said list. As such, it cannot be said that there was an arbitrariness or discrimination and contention of the petitioners that it was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is without any basis. He further submits that since the period of validity of select/ waiting list has already expired, now fresh advertisement has to be published for appointment of Shiksha Karmis.