1 2025:CGHC:31099 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3147 of 2017 1 - Ramakant Goswami S/o Shri V.N. Puri Goswami Aged About 55 Years R/o Tahsil Office, Pondiuproda, Tahsil Pondiuproda, Police Station Konkona, District Korba Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through The Secretary, Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Suresh Kumar Rai, Naib Tehsildar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Krishna Kumar Lahre, Naib Tehsildar, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ku. Bisahin Chauhan, Naib Tehsildar, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Shani Kumar Paikra, Naib Tehsildar, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 7 - Devendra Kolhe, Naib Tehsildar, District Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 8 - Ku. Yashoda, Naib Tehsildar, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 9 - Ku. Mamta Thakur, Naib Tehsildar, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 10 - Ku. Nita, Naib Tehsildar, District Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Prashant Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Prateek SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Shreyadeep Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. The facts of the present case are that an advertisement was issued on 4.3.2014 for promotion through a limited competitive examination amongst in-service candidates including Patwaris, Revenue Officers & Clerks, for a total of 57 posts of Naib Tehsildar in the Revenue Department. Out of these, 29 posts were to be filled from the Clerk cadre. The written examination was conducted on 20.7.2014, and the result was declared on 17.2.2015. The first appointment list comprising 24 clerk candidates was published on 24.6.2015. Subsequently, vide order dated 22.3.2016, 8 more clerk candidates were appointed to the post of Naib Tehsildar against a total of 29 sanctioned posts. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that a direction may be issued to the State authorities/respondent No.1 to create one additional vacancy in order to accommodate the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the appointments of three candidates, who were in excess of the 3 sanctioned post, have already been canceled vide order dated 29.7.2019 by the State Government. She would further submit that, in the absence of a vacancy, the petitioner cannot be offered an appointment. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would support the contention made by counsel for the State. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. It is a well-settled principle of law that no appointment can be made in excess of the advertised and sanctioned post. In the present case, respondent No.1 had appointed three additional candidates to the post of Naib Tehsildar in excess of the advertised posts and their appointments have already been canceled by the State. Further no direction can be issued to the State to create a supernumerary post to accommodate the petitioner, and there is no existing vacancy, therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before the respondent authorities raising all his grievances. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi