1 2025:CGHC:26366 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4285 of 2013 Prahalad Singh Rajput S/o Late Chandan Singh Aged About 35 Years Durga Chowk, Shankar Nagar, Durg Tah. And Distt. Durg C.G. , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. S/o Through - Principal Secretary, Veterinary Department Govt. Of C.G. Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur C.G. , Chhattisgarh 2 - Deputy Director Veterinary Department Durg Tha. And Distt. Durg C.G. , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Neeta Tulsiyani, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 20.06.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s); “(1) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for records of select list, waiting list and names of persons so appointed and peruse the same. (2) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as per order dated 17/12/2012 Annexure P2 by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction deemed fit in the interest of justice. (3) That the Hon'ble Court may also direct Respondents to give all consequential reliefs to the petitioner. (4) That the Hon'ble Court may mould the relief as and when required in the interest of justice. (5) That the Hon'ble Court may issue any other writ writs, order orders, direction or directions, deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 2. The case in a nutshell is that the respondents floated advertisement in Local News Papers for appointment of (Swachchha Karta, Paricharak, Sah-Chowkidar) (Sweeper-cum-Attendant-cum-Watchman). Since petitioner is holding all the HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.06.24 10:21:35 +0530 2 requisite qualifications, he was selected, the same would be evident from Order No. 6525/Estt-B/Recruit/2012-2013 Office of Deputy Director Veterinary Services, Durg (C.G.) dated 17/12/2012. The petitioner was number one in the waiting list, but some one else with lesser merit, has been appointed, the same would be evident from letter No. 3809/Estt-B/2013 Office of Deputy Director, Veterinary Services Distt. Durg (C.G.) Durg Dated 22/X/2013. 3. Return and Additional return has been filed by the respondents which in a nutshell indicates in paragraphs No. 5 & 6 which is quoted herein below:- “5.That, it is submitted that, a bare perusal of the advertisement attached as Annexure-P-1 at page No.7 would indicate that in the category for male (unreserved) only 6 vacancies were available and as per the documents attached with the return as Annexure-R-1 it is evident that all the 6 vacancies available against unreserved category were filled up and all the persons joined and are working. 6. That, admittedly the petitioner was placed in waiting list No.1, as none of the 6 selected persons left or did not joined their working place and therefore the waiting list could not be given effect to.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement was issued by the respondents on 19.03.2012 for appointment to the post of Sweeper-cum-Attendant- cum-Watchman. The petitioner also submitted his application for the said post, pursuant to which a select list was prepared, wherein the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1 in the waiting list. He further submit that though the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1 another person has been appointed from the waiting list ignoring the claim of the petitioner. For that purposes, he applied for information in which it is indicated that one person from the list has been appointed. Therefore, he prays that this writ petition may be allowed. 5. Opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel submits that the total number of posts advertised was six, all belonging to the General Category. As per the select list, six candidates have already been appointed against the said posts, and no vacancy remains available. Insofar as the information 3 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it does not disclose any details regarding the recruitment process under which such information was allegedly obtained. Furthermore, the application for obtaining the said information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has not been placed on record, nor the alleged appointee has been arrayed as a respondent in the present writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition has no merit and liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. Admittedly, the advertisement was issued in the year 2012 for appointment to the post of Sweeper-cum-Attendant-cum-Watchman. The petitioner, along with other candidates, applied for the said post and a select list was prepared, in which six candidates were placed, and the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1 in the waiting list. According to the reply filed by the learned counsel for the State, all six candidates from the select list have already joined and are presently working in their respective positions. Further, it has been submitted that none of these candidates has resigned or vacated the post. This factual position has not been controverted by the petitioner in the rejoinder. Apart from this, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the information allegedly received under the Right to Information Act is also misplaced, as the application submitted for obtaining such information has not been filed along with the petition. Moreover, the person who is alleged to have been appointed from the waiting list has not been arrayed as a respondent in the present petition. Therefore, in light of above this writ petition is sans merit and is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari