1 2025:CGHC:12292-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 178 of 2025 1 - Virendra Kumar Mire S/o Shri Jeevanlal Miri Aged About 44 Years R/o Majgaopara Ps Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 3 - Nand Kumar Shyamale S/o P.R. Shyamale Aged About 36 Years Village And Post Lakhram, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12. 03.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 02 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. On due consideration, the I.A. No. 02 is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2 2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the order dated 22.10.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the WPS No. 4622/2015 (Virendra Kumar Mire Vs. State of C.G. & Ors.) with the following reliefs:- “(i) That, the Hon'ble Court may Kindly set-aside the impugned order Dated 22/10/2024 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in WP(S) No.4622/2015 (Virendra Kumar Mire vs. State of C.G. & Ors.); (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the case of the appellant for appointment for the post of Peon from the waiting list. (iii) That, any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the appellant;” 3. The facts of the case is that the advertisement for appointment to the post of Peon was issued on 24.08.2013 (Annexure P/1) by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Mungeli, pursuant to which, the petitioner/ appellant and respondent No.3 both were called for interview for the said post. Subsequently, vide order dated 12.06.2014 (Annexure P/3), respondent No.3 was selected for the aforesaid post, which he joined on the same day. However, the services of respondent No.3 was terminated vide order dated 29.11.2014 (Annexure P/8), on the ground that he was having more than two living children and the third child was born after 26.01.2001. The case of the petitioner/ appellant is that since the aforesaid post has fallen vacant following the termination of the respondent No.3, therefore, he may be appointed to the said post. 4. Ms. Diksha Gauraha, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since the subject post has fallen vacant within one year from the date of declaration of the select list on 12.06.2014. After termination of Nand Kumar Shyamale for the post of peon, the termination order has been challenged by Mr. Shyamale before this Hon’ble Court but the same is still pending and no 3 interim relief has been granted in favour of Nand Kumar Shyamale. Therefore, the appellant may be appointed in the aforesaid post. 5. Learned Counsel for the State submits that since the process of appointment has already been completed and the vacancy has arisen on account of termination of respondent No.4 on 29.11.2014 (Annexure P/8), therefore, the post cannot be said to be fallen vacant as it gives rise to a fresh vacancy, which is to be filled up in accordance with law and by following a fresh selection process. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana & Ors 1 . 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4622/2015 as well as the documents annexed with the case. 7. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sudesh Kumar Goyal (supra) may be noticed, wherein, it has clearly been held in paragraph 19 as under:- "19. This takes us to the second argument that the appellant could have been easily adjusted against the vacancy caused due to resignation of one of the selected candidates. The argument per se is bereft of merit inasmuch as all the vacancies notified stood filled up initially. However, if one of the selected candidates joins and then resigns, it gives rise to a fresh vacancy which could not have been filled up without issuing a proper advertisement and following the fresh selection process. The Division Bench has rightly dealt with the above contention in the light of the precedent of the various decisions of this Court and we do not feel that any error has been committed in this context." 8. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the documents on record, the learned Single Judge has observed that:- “8. Reverting to the facts of the case, since respondent No.3 had already joined the said post and, thereafter, he was terminated from the said post, it has given rise to a fresh 1 (2023) 10 SCC 54 4 vacancy, which is to be filled up in accordance with law and it could not have been filled up on the basis of earlier select list. Furthermore, since the subject recruitment has already been concluded after the appointment of respondent No.3, as such, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly. dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).” 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost (S) Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.03.13 11:49:07 +0530