1 2025:CGHC:11686-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 167 of 2025 Shirish Tiwari S/o Shri Anand Prakash Tiwari Aged About 43 Years R/o Near Ram Talkies, Ward No. 19, Ganjpara, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Department Of Panchayat 36 C-I I I, Block - I I, Second Floor, Indravati Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Office At Zila Panchayat Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.03.2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.11 10:52:16 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondent / State. 2. The appellant have filed this writ appeal against the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S). No. 4498 of 2018 (Shirish Tiwari vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3 issued an advertisement for direct recruitment for the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) in the Commerce stream in District Narayanpur (C.G.). There were a total of 4 posts for the Lecturer (Panchayat). Out of 4 posts, one post was kept for the unreserved category. Another advertisement was issued by respondent No.3 whereby applications were invited from the departmental candidates for promotion to the 11 posts of Lecturers. The writ petitioner as well as other eligible candidates participated in the recruitment process of the Lecturer (Panchayat) pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.07.2017 against one unreserved post. The select list was published. The writ petitioner was at serial No.1 in the wait list whereas the candidate namely, Kaynath Parveen was selected. In the departmental examination, out of 11 posts, only one teacher namely, Lata Manikpuri was appointed to the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) under the unreserved category. Being aggrieved by 3 the same, the writ petitioner/appellant herein preferred WPS No. 4498 of 2018, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.02.2025, hence this writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law and hence is liable to be set- aside. He further submits that the appellant/petitioner has filed writ petition claiming appointment on the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) on the ground of eligible candidate, showing his rank at Sr.No.1 in the waiting list as well as securing higher marks as the posts are lying vacant after the promotion of the eligible candidates from the post of Teacher (Panchayat) to Lecturer (Panchayat). The claim of the appellant/petitioner is completely based upon the Rules which has been framed by the State Government i.e. Chhattisgarh Shikshak Panchayat Samvarg (Bharti Tatha Sewa Ki Sharten) Niyam, 2012 (hereinafter will be mentioned as 'Rules of 2012') for filling the post of Lecturer (Panchayat). The advertisement dated 24.07.17 whereby 4 posts under the category of Commerce was published and one post was kept vacant for reserved category to which petitioner also belongs. However, clause 6(4) clearly states about validity of the waiting list would be for one year and clause 14 clearly states that the entire selection and appointment would be in strict compliance with the 'Rules of 2012'. The vacancy for the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) through promotion was also published in the month of July 2017, simultaneously along with the 4 advertisement for the said post and as per the documents available on record for District Narayanpur total 11 posts of Commerce subject was lying vacant. Therefore both the vacancies i.e. direct recruitment as well as promotional post was published together in compliance as per Rule 6 of the 'Rules of 2012' the appointments and promotions would be governed as per Scheduled III Column 3 & 4 and as per the schedule 50% posts ought to have been filled up through direct recruitment and 50% post was to be filled up through promotion. Further, as per 'Rules of 2012' Rule 7(F) (10) after declaration of the result the validity of the waiting list would be for one year and during this tenure if new posts arises or the post are lying vacant due to any reason then same shall be filled up through the waiting list, therefore petitioner being the candidate holding first rank was eligible for consideration to the post of Lecturer Panchayat. As per note 2 of Scheduled III of the 'Rules of 2012' if the candidates are not available for promotion to the promotional post then the said promotional post are to be filled up through the direct recruitment and in the instant case, appellant/petitioner has obtained second rank in the direct recruitment and is situated at Sr.No.1 in the waiting list and as per the 'Rules of 2012' itself those posts which are newly formed or lying vacant due to any reason has to be filled up by the waiting list therefore the appellant/petitioner is the first entitled person to be appointed on the post of Lecturer (Panchayat). Also, as per note 2 of Scheduled III of the 'Rules of 2012' those posts which are lying 5 vacant after the promotion of the eligible candidates are to be filled up through the direct recruitment, therefore in the instant case only one Smt. Lata Manikpuri has been promoted to the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) vide Annexure P-4 under the unreserved category therefore petitioner is entitled for appointment against the 04 vacant post under unreserved category which was published for promotion. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has held that admittedly, the writ petitioner participated in the advertisement for the direct recruitment for the post of Lecturer (Panchayat). One post of Lecturer (Panchayat) was kept for the unreserved category. The writ petitioner was placed at serial No.1 on the waitlist. The writ petitioner is claiming that his candidature may be considered against the departmental vacancy. The learned Single Judge further observed Clause (f) of the Rule 7 of the 6 Chhattisgarh Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 and Schedule-III and Note appended to the Rule and has observed that a bare reading of Schedule-III and a note appended to the Rule would make it clear that 50% of posts are to be filled through direct recruitment and the rest of 50% can be filled by promotion. In the absence of suitable candidates in the limited departmental examination, the posts can be filled through direct recruitment but it is nowhere stated that those posts have to be filled by the candidates who have participated in the process of direct recruitment. The learned Single Judge further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Vivek Kaisth and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, 2024 (2) SCC 269 and has concluded that, in the present case, there were two separate advertisements. The writ petitioner submitted his application form against the advertisement issued for direct recruitment and he was not eligible to participate in the departmental examination as he was not a teacher. There was only one vacancy in the district Narayanpur for the unreserved category of Lecturer (Panchayat) and someone else was placed at Serial No.1 on the merit list and the name of the writ petitioner was at Serial No.1 on the wait list. The recruitment process came to an end immediately after the appointment of the selected candidate. The wait-list cannot be used as a reservoir as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to fill up the subsequent vacancies. If there were 7 vacancies for direct recruitment certainly the case of the writ petitioner could have been considered by the respondent authorities but the writ petitioner cannot be accommodated against the post reserved for the departmental candidates. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. 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 Manpreet