ANGAD KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed by the writ petitioner(s) of W.P. (S) Nos. 5408/2009, 6228/2009, 4628/2009, 4941/2009, 4939/2009, 438/2011, 6255/2009, 435/2011, 4632/2009, 4787/2010, 6258/2009, 4780/2010, 6704/2009, 436/2011, 3600/2010, 4781/2010, 437/2011, 3599/2010, 3598/2010, 4782/2010, 4783/2010, 4779/2010, 433/2011 under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 against the orders dated 17/11/2009, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011, 28/02/2011 passed by learned Single Judge in aforementioned writ petitions.

(2.) BY impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition and in consequence declined to grant any relief claimed by him in his writ petition.

(3.) THE appellants while claiming this relief placed reliance on clause 4.24 of the advertisement read with Rule 7(xi) of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Services), Rules (hereinafter for brevity called "The Rules") which interalia provided that entire selection list together with the waiting list shall be valid for one year after the declaration of the examination result and new post sanctioned or any post if fall vacant in this period shall be filled by offering to the candidates placed in waiting list. According to the appellants, since the validity of the selection and waiting list coupled with the process of giving appointment pursuant to selection/waiting list was extended by the State till 30.8.2009 by issuance of one administrative order on 30.5.2009, and hence it was for the State to have ensured that appointment orders had been issued in favour of wait listed candidates within the extended period i.e. on or before 30.8.2009. It was also stated that some Janpads had also started process of giving appointment to some wait listed candidates but since no appointment letters to the appellants were issued and hence writ petitions were constrained to file writ petitions for issuance of writ of mandamus out of which these appeals arise.