Nafr High Court
Case Details
1/7 (WPS No. 1923 & 3022 of 2013) 2025:CGHC:6010 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) NO. 1923 OF 2013 1. Manoj Kumar Pandey, S/o Tarachandra Pandey, aged about 29 years, R/o Village Pachira, PO Surajpur, PS and Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) 2. Manish Pathak, S/o Nagendra Kumar Pathak, aged about 26 years, R/o Bauri Para, Heera Hardware Ki Gali, PS Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Versus ... Petitioner(s) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Agriculture, D.K.S. Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director, Department of Agriculture, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. Agriculture, Surguja Division, With ... Respondent(s) WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) NO. 3022 OF 2013 1. Manoj Kumar Pandey, S/o Tarachandra Pandey, aged about 29 years, R/o Village Pachira, PO Surajpur, Tahsil, PS and Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) Versus ... Petitioner(s) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Agriculture, D.K.S. Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director, Department of Agriculture, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) 2/7 (WPS No. 1923 & 3022 of 2013) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- For Respondent-State :-
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate. Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Single ] Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Decision
Order on Board (03-02-2025) 1. Since common question of law and facts is involved in the present two Writ Petitions, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Manoj Kumar Pandey and Manish Pathak, who are the two Petitioners in W.P.(S) No.1923/2013, have jointly preferred the said writ petition seeking a writ directing the Respondents to fill-up the vacant posts and appoint them to the posts which are lying vacant in their category. 3. Manoj Kumar Pandey, one of the Petitioners in W.P.(S) No.1923/2013, had subsequently also preferred W.P. (S) No.2210/2013 seeking appropriate directions to the Respondents that since he was placed in the waiting list and there are vacancies available with the 3/7 (WPS No. 1923 & 3022 of 2013) Respondent-Department, his candidature may be considered on the post of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer. The said Writ Petition was finally disposed of by this Court by Order dated 26.7.2013 directing the Respondent authorities to consider his case on the basis of inclusion of his name in the waiting list, looking to the fact that vacancies are available and no fresh recruitment process has been initiated, subject to the list being valid and operative. However, the Respondent authorities vide impugned Order dated 12.8.2013 rejected his representation made pursuant to aforesaid order of this Court. It is this Order dated 12.8.2013 which has been put to challenge by Manoj Kumar Pandey in W.P.(S) No.3022/2013 before this Court. 4. Advertisement was issued for recruitment to the post of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, which also included posts under Unreserved category. The said recruitment process was completed and as per Annexure D-1, select-list was prepared on 4.5.2012. Thereafter, on 24.5.2013, the Joint Director, Agriculture, Division Surguja (Ambikapur) informed the 4/7 (WPS No. 1923 & 3022 of 2013) Director, Agriculture, Raipur regarding total 14 posts of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer lying vacant, i.e., 08 numbers of posts lying vacant under Unreserved category and 06 numbers of posts lying vacant on account of resignation of six Rural Agriculture Extension Officers. 5. Mr. Sushobhit Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submits that since there were 08 posts under Unreserved category lying vacant and the Petitioners were placed at Sl. No.17 and 10 in the merit-list and no appointment orders have been issued to all the selected candidates and all the posts have not been filed-up, the action on the part of Respondent- Department in holding that the validity period of final select-list has expired after one year of its publication is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the settled provision of law and therefore the Petitioners are entitled to be appointed on the said post of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of State of Jammu & Kashmir 5/7 (WPS No. 1923 & 3022 of 2013) and Others v. Sat Pal 1 and Uttam Kumar Bareth v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others2. 6. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State Counsel, however submits that the subject recruitment has been conducted in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Sub- ordinate Agriculture Class-III (Non-Ministerial) Service Recruitment Rules, 2010 (for short, ‘Rules of 2010’) and Rule 16 of the said Rules of 2010 only provides for preparation of select-list and nowhere provides for the waiting-list and that fresh recruitment process has already been issued for the remaining posts in October, 2023. Therefore, the aforesaid decisions which have relied upon by the Petitioners would not be applicable to the facts of the present two Writ Petitions which are liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit. 7. I have heard learned Counsels for parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that on 4.5.2012 (Annexure D-1), select-list was prepared as per Rule 16 of the Rules of 2010, which provides as under:- 1 2 (2013) 11 SCC 737 (2016) SCC OnLine Chh 926 6/7 (WPS No. 1923 & 3022 of 2013) “16. Select List.- (1) The list as finally approved by the Appointing Authority shall form the Select List for promotion of the members of the service from the posts mentioned in column of Schedule-IV, to the posts as mentioned in column (3) of the said Schedule-IV. (2) The select list shall ordinarily be in force for the period of one year from the date of its preparation. Provided that in the event of grave lapse in the conduct or performance of duties on the part of any person included in the Select List a special review of the Select List may be made at the instance of the appointing authority and if the committee may, if it thinks fit, remove the name of such person from the select list.” 9. A careful perusal of the aforementioned Rule 16 would show that the select list shall ordinarily be in force for the period of one year from the date of its preparation. As per Annexure D-1, the select-list was prepared on 4.5.2012 and for the vacant posts, advertisement has already been issued in October, 2023. Rule 16 nowhere provides for the preparation of the waiting-list. 10. The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Others v. Bharathi S. 3 relying upon its earlier decision has held that the duty to fill-up vacancies from the additional list (waiting-list) can arise only on the basis 3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 665 7/7 (WPS No. 1923 & 3022 of 2013) of a mandatory rule and in absence of such a mandate, the decision to fill all the vacancies from the additional list, is left to the wisdom of the State. 11. In the instant case, the Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that there is provision for additional list/waiting list and further failed to establish that there is a mandate in the rule for filling up of the vacant posts from waiting-list. Thus, in absence of any rule providing that posts are to be filled up from the waiting-list and there is no provision for preparation of waiting-list, I do not find any merit in the present Writ Petitions. 12. In that view of matter, the above-mentioned two decisions which have been relied upon by the Petitioners would not come to the rescue of the Petitioners. 13. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge sharad SHARAD KUMAR YADAV Digitally signed by SHARAD KUMAR YADAV Date: 2025.02.05 17:12:58 +0530