1 2026:CGHC:6485-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 533 of 2024 Prakash Kumar Thawait S/o. Shri Bhagwat Prasad Thawait Aged About 39 Years R/o. Near Gyan Bharti School, Link Road, Janjgir, Ps Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 5) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 1) 2. The Director Directorate of Agriculture, Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 2) 3. The Divisional Joint Director Division Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 3) 4. The Divisional Joint Director Division Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 4) 5. The Divisional Joint Director Division Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) (Respondent No. 5) 6. The Divisional Joint Director Division Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 6) 7. Satish Kumar S/o. Shri Gajanand Singh Shrivas Aged About 39 Years R/o. Chandaini, Tehsil And P.S. Khairagarh, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 1) 8. Suresh Kumar S/o. Shri Khemlal Verma Aged About 42 Years R/o. Village Nathagaon, P.O. Tumdibod, Tehsil And P.S. Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 2) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.02.05 17:39:07 +0530 2 9. Ghanshyam Nagvanshi S/o. Shri Mansingh Nagwanshi Aged About 38 Years R/o. Village - Deori, P.O. Khursuni, P.S. Arjunda, District - Balod (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 3) 10. Surendra Kumar Kashyap S/o. Shri Jivrakhan Kashyap Aged About 40 Years R/o. Village And P.O. Gadhveer, P.S. Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 4) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05 .02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State on I.A. No. 1 of 2024, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2024 is allowed and the delay of 65 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant 3 against the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6175 of 2014 (Satish Kumar & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by respondents No. 7 to 10/writ petitioners herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State counsel that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed a bunch of writ appeals, the leading case being WA No. 524 of 2024 (Bhupesh Kumar Sahu & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), vide order dated 06.09.2024, observing as follows: “8. It is not in dispute that the Rule 16 provides about selection list and there is a provision that the select list shall ordinarily be in force for the period of one year from the date of its preparation. It is not in dispute that as the validity of the select list was already expired, the Director, Agriculture has made a proposal for extension of the period of validity of the list for a further period of six months. The said proposal was placed before the General Administration Department and the General Administration Department has refused to accord its permission as per Rule 16 (2) of the Rules, 2010 and even the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the Rule 16 (2) of the Rules, 2010 is for promotion and is also for a direct recruitment. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants who have alleged to be selected as a direct recruitee the Rule 16 (2) of the Rules, 2010 will be applied in the case of the petitioners/appellants also and hence as the validity of the select list has already been expired 4 the petitioners/appellants cannot claim appointment only because their names were mentioned in the select list. From perusal of the impugned order it transpires that the learned Single Judge has examined the issues by referring Rule 16 (2) of the Rules, 2010 and rightly opined that the Rule 16 (2) of the Rules, 2010 specifically deals with the select list wherein the validity period of one year has been prescribed and on reading of the aforesaid Rule, it is explicit that the said Rules deals with the recruitment. Learned Single Judge further observed that it is a trite law that a candidate does not acquire any indefeasible right to the post merely because he has appeared in the examination or even his name found place in the select list. 9. In the matter of Sheo Shyam & Others Vs. State of UP & Others' reported in AIR 2004 SC 1938, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed at para-9 which reads thus:- "9. .....Undisputedly, appointments were made till the end of 2001. Therefore, it would be proper to reckon the period from the last date when the recommendation was made. But another situation has developed subsequently....…” 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of East Coast Railway & Another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Others, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 678 has observed at para-14 which reads thus:- "14. It is evident from the above that while no candidate acquires an indefeasible right to a post merely because he has 5 appeared in the examination or even found a place in the select list, yet the State does not enjoy an unqualified prerogative to refuse an appointment in an arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit of the candidates as reflected by the merit list prepared at the end of the selection process. The validity of the State's decision not to make an appointment is thus a matter which is not beyond judicial review before a competent writ court. If any such decision is indeed found to be arbitrary, appropriate directions can be issued in the matter." 11. The position of law is also clear. In the matter of Subha B. Nair & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2008) 7 SCC 210 it has been held that 'A decision on the part of an employer whether to fill up the existing vacancies or not is within its domain. On this limited ground in the absence of discrimination or arbitrariness, a writ court ordinarily would not interfere in such matters. Similar view has also been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Thulaseedharan Vs. Kerala State Public Service Commission, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 190. 12. Considering the pleadings made in the writ appeals, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the settled position of law that a decision on the part of an employer whether to fill up existing vacancies or not within its domain and considering the finding recorded 6 by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners/appellants, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the present writ appeals being devoid of merits are liable to be and are hereby dismissed.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present appeal is identical to that of WA No. 524 of 2024 & batch, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 524 of 2024 & batch, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 524 of 2025 & batch. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 06.09.2024 passed in WA No. 524 of 2024 & batch. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan