1 2025:CGHC:50302 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10609 of 2019 Akash Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Chherka Prasad Bhardwaj, Aged About 28 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Superintendent (Land Record), R/o Village Telikot Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar (Naya Raipur), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Under Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar (Naya Raipur), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents. With WPS No. 10825 of 2019 Smita Kumari W/o Vinay Agrawal Aged About 31 Years R/o C-83, Sector-1, Devendra Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2025.10.09 16:50:26 +0530 2 ---Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar (Naya Raipur), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Under Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar (Naya Raipur), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Shanker Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents. With WPS No. 10811 of 2019 Vinay Kumar Patel S/o Prem Singh Patel Aged About 28 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Superintendent (Land Record), R/o Village Gidhauri Tahsil Champa District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Under Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Shanker Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents. (Cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioners : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate. For Res No.1 & 2 : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate. For Res No.3 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 09.10.2025 1. By way of the aforesaid Writ Petitions the common relief sought by the petitioners is for their appointment from Waiting List to the post of Nayab Tahsildar, following the examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "CGPSC") vide Advertisement No.11/2016/Exam/Date 23.11.2016 published on 26.11.2016. 2. At the outset, Shri Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.3 wold submit that a specific rule has been framed by the CGPSC for conducting the examination of various posts of the State Services and same has also been published in the Chhattisgarh Gazette and uploaded in the web portal of the Department. He submits that Rule 19 of the CGPSC Rules deals with preparation of selection lists and supplementary lists and validity of the lists. In terms of Rule 19.2 of the said Rules, after publication of new list of selection, the earlier wait list would 4 lapse. For the sake of brevity of Rule 19.2 is reproduced hereunder:- "19. Preparation of selection lists and supplementary lists and validity of the lists- 19.1 **** 19.2 Selection & waiting lists published by the Commission shall remain effective consequently for the duration of a year and one & half year since the date of being made effective. Any such list, shall remain effective until a new list is published after the end of minimum one year duration or a period of two years, whichever is earlier, does not elapse." 3. He further submits that in the present case for the State Services examination in respect of Advertisement No.11/2016 dated 23.11.2016, the final selection list was published on 30.12.2017. Thereafter, in respect of publication of new advertisement bearing Adv No.14/2017/2017/Exam/dated 25.11.2017, a new list of selected candidate was published on 29.11.2017 and final select list was also published on 29.01.2019. In such circumstances, after publication of new list, wait list of Adv. No.11/2016 already stood expired. He submits that after expiry of said period, these writ petitions have been filed on 06.12.2019 and 16.12.2019, respectively. He also submits that even the petitioners have not challenged Rule 19.2 of the CGPSC Rules in the present case. So nothing survives in the present petition for adjudication and they are liable to be dismissed. 5 4. Shri Rajeev Bharat, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2/State adopts the submission put-forth by learned counsel for respondent No.3 and prays to dismiss the petition. 5. Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in the similar nature of case bearing WPS No.2800/2017 (Vijay Pandey Vs. State of CG and Ors), wherein, claim of the petitioner for appointment on the State Service Examination, 2011 has been refused by the concerned Authorities on the ground that the validity of the waiting list in which the name of the petitioner appears stood expired, this High Court Court vide order dated 02.07.2018 allowed the writ petition in favour of the petitioner for appointment. He submits that the present case is similar in nature with that case, therefore, the writ petitions may be allowed and suitable direction may be issued to the concerned Authorities. 6. Countering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Tiwari learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that the case referred by the petitioners is distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the State within the validity of period of limitation has made recommendation for names of candidates of the waiting list to the Public Service Commission (PSC) vide its letter dated 09.12.2014 and the said submission was made in Para 6 of the order passed in WPS No.2800/2017. He submits that considering such fact and that recommendation has been received 6 by the PSC within a period of waiting list, the PSC gave favourable recommendation for appointment of such candidate. However, in the present case no such request has been received by the PSC Department within the validity period of the waiting list and further as per relevant rules the waiting list has already been expired. In such circumstances, since there is no discrimination or arbitrariness on the part of the Authorities, the petitioners have no vested right for appointment after expiry of waiting list. He also places reliance in the matter of Surinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1998 SC 18) to submit that if the waiting list in one examination is allowed to operate for an infinite stock of appointment, it is likely that the State Government may not hold examinations for years together and may pick up candidates from the waiting list as and when required and the constitutional discipline requires that the Court should not permit such improper exercise of power which may result in creating a vested interest and perpetuate 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. In view of such submission, he submits that there is no force in the submission of counsel for the petitioners. 7. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, particularly considering that there is a specific rule i.e. Rule 19.2 provided under the CGPSC Rules which deals with the validity of waiting list and further considering that the Authorities have 7 followed the due procedure prescribed under the Rules, this Court finds that no arbitrariness or discrimination has been made against the petitioners in respect of the selection process. 8. In view of above, no case is made out for grant of relief as sought by the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed. 10. The pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay