1 2025:CGHC:59060 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13540 of 2025 1. Shiv Kumar Kewat S/o Shri Ghassu Prasad Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Andbhar Tahsil Pendra District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Medical And Health Officer District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) 3. Mission Director National Health Mission, Atal Nagar, Health Building, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 05.12.2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Secretarial Assistant -IDSP under the Office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer, District - Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) from wait list as he was at serial No. 1 of waiting list. MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.12.19 11:17:34 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have initiated proceedings for appointment on the post of Secretarial Assistant -IDSP in the office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer, District - Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) on 16.05.2023. In pursuance of that, one candidate Mr. Indrabhan Singh Rathore was selected candidate, but he could not join the services, therefore, the petitioner immediately moved an application for considering his candidature as he was in the serial No. 1 in waiting list of the selection list issued for Secretarial Assistant -IDSP. He would further submit that validity period of waiting list is one year which is still in existence as the selection list was published on 28.11.2024, as such, the respondents should have considered his case and would pray for allowing the present writ petition. 3. Per contra, learned counsel State counsel would submit that after selection process waiting list, they have already issued a fresh advertisement, therefore, as per Clause 9.1 of the advertisement waiting list will be valid for one year or the fresh advertisement is issued whichever is earlier. Clause 9.1 of the advertisement reads as under: “9-1- foKkfir inksa ds fy, izfr{kk lwph Hkh tkjh dh tkosxh] ftldh oS/krk lwph izdk’ku frfFk ls U;wure 1 o"kZ ;k vxyh uohu HkrhZ ds foKkiu tkjh gkus ¼tks igys gks½ rd gksxhA” 4. It has also been contended that since in the present case, advertisement for further appointment has already been issued, therefore, they have not considered the case of the petitioner and action of the respondents in not considering the case of the 3 petitioner is in accordance with the advertisement, as such, it does not warrant any interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the submission that though the waiting list remained in force for one year, but Clause 9.1 of the advertisement further provides that if these two contingencies exist in the situation the validity period of the vacancy will be the period upto publication of advertisement. Since the respondents have already issued the advertisement, therefore, the waiting list will lose its significance. Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that the selected candidate or waiting list candidate has no indefeasible right to be appointed, therefore, in view of the well settled position of law and also considering Clause 9.1 of the advertisement which provides that waiting list will be valid till the new advertisement is not issued, therefore, I am of the view that no case for interference is made out. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish