1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4667 of 2018 1 - Kumud Kumar Yadav S/o Shri P.R. Yadav, Aged About 42 Years Ex - Serviceman, Katulboard, Yadav Para, Ward No. 50, Post S.A.F. Line Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. P.S. Rakhi., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Collectorate, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Shalini Kashyap, Advocate on behalf of Shri Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents : Shri Keshav Gupta, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.03.17 16:41:05 +0530 2 13/03/2026 1. This writ petition has been 6led seeking for the following reliefs: “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction and quash the order dated 26.03.2018 (Annexure P-1); and 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment against the vacant post of Peon. 10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems 6t and proper, may also be awarded to the Petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 published an advertisement dated 22.9.2016 inviting applications from aspiring candidates for appointment on various posts including Peon. The petitioner, who belongs to Other Backward Classes Category, made an application in lieu of the advertisement. After completion of the recruitment process, a select list was published by the respondents in which the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.1 in the waiting list of Other Backward Classes Category and at Sl.No.4 in the waiting list of Unreserved Category. She further submits that the selected candidate at Sl.No.2 Naresh Kumar Gangber did not join the post and thus a person from Sl.No.1 in the waiting list was given appointment who also resigned after joining and the person at Sl.No.2 in the waiting list was given the joining. He also resigned and the person at Sl.No.3 was working at some diDerent place has not joined was not given any appointment and thus as all the above three candidates have not joined on the post which 3 fell vacant on account of resignation of Shri Naresh Kumar Gangber of Sl.No.2, the respondents ought to have given appointment to the petitioner as he stood at Sl.No.4 in the waiting list. As soon as the petitioner came to know that the post is lying vacant, he made a representation to respondent No.1 which has been rejected on the ground that the waiting list is valid for only one year. She further submits that admittedly the person who was initially appointed has resigned and did not join and later on two persons above at Sl.No.1 and 2 after joining resigned from the post and the person at Sl.No.3 has also not been given any appointment, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered. She submits that simply because the waiting list has expired, it cannot curtail the right of the petitioner to be considered for appointment. 3. Opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that the waiting list has already expired and the petitioner cannot be given appointment because the select list has also been acted upon by the respondents, as such the recruitment process in lieu of the advertisement has already come to an end. Even otherwise, this petition is 6led in the year 2018 after about two years from the date of publication of the waiting list. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with due care. 5. In the case of Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat and others, reported in 4 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus: “8. Coming to the next issue, the 6rst question is what is a waiting list?; can it be treated as a source of recruitment from which candidates may be drawn as and when necessary?; and lastly how long can it operate? These are some important questions which do arise as a result of direction issued by the High Court. A waiting list prepared in service matters by the competent authority is a list of eligible and quali6ed candidates who in order of merit are placed below the last selected candidate. How it should operate and what is its nature may be governed by the rules. Usually it is linked with the selection or examination for which it is prepared. For instance, if an examination is held say for selecting 10 candidates for 1990 and the competent authority prepares a waiting list then it is in respect of those 10 seats only for which selection or competition was held. Reason for it is that whenever selection is held, except where it is for single post, it is normally held by taking into account not only the number of vacancies existing on the date when advertisement is issued or applications are invited but even those which are likely to arise in future within one year or so due to retirement etc. It is more so where selections are held regularly by the Commission. Such lists are prepared either under the rules or even otherwise mainly to ensure that the 5 working in the oHce does not suDer if the selected candidates do not join for one or the other reason or the next selection or examination is not held soon. A candidate in the waiting list in the order of merit has a right to claim that he may be appointed if one or the other selected candidate does not join. But once the selected candidates join 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 speci6c 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. 9. A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then the person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. But the view taken by the High Court that since the vacancies have not been 6 worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting list were liable to be appointed does not appear to be sound. This practice, may result in depriving those candidates who become eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future. If the waiting list in one examination was to operate as an in6nite stock for appointments, there is a danger that the State Government may resort to the device of not holding an examination for years together and pick up candidates from the waiting list as and when required. The constitutional discipline requires that this Court should not permit such improper exercise of power which may result in creating a vested interest and perpetrate waiting list for the candidates of one examination at the cost of entire set of fresh candidates either from the open or even from service.” 6. In the instant case, there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is placed at Sl.No.4 in the waiting list of Unreserved Category. This is also not in dispute that initially the selected candidate at Sl.No.2 did not join and two more persons who have been given appointment have also resigned from the post after joining and the third person was not given any appointment. The fact remains that nothing has been brought on record as to whether that if a person joins and thereafter resigns that vacancy would be considered vacant in light of the advertisement. In the opinion of this Court, in absence of any speci6c rules, it is brought to the notice of this Court that even 7 after the resignation of the persons appointed, the vacancy would fall vacant and a person can be considered from the waiting list. Apart from this, no prayer has been made by the petitioner to revive the waiting list and the waiting list has already expired, even otherwise a person who is placed in the select list does not have any vested right to be appointed. 7. Hence, this Court does not 6nd any merit in this petition. It is dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal