1 2026:CGHC:12454 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2097 of 2020 Sunil Verma, S/o. Chhabiram Verma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o. Krishna Nagar, Santoshi Nagar, Radha Vihar, House No.A-8, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Urban Administration And Development, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kabir Kalwani, Advocate For Respondents : Dr. S.K.Dewangan, Panel Lawyer (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.03.17 12:54:16 +0530 2 16.03.2026 1. The present petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Sanitary Inspector pursuant to advertisement dated 16.12.2018. 2. The State has filed its return stating that the merit list of selected candidates was published on 17.09.2018 vide Annexure R-1 and petitioner did not secure position in the merit list, the waiting list was not prepared and published and the legality of the select list was expired on 17.09.2019. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for appointment on the post of Sanitary Inspector, if waiting list was prepared. 4. Learned State counsel would oppose the argument advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner and submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents meticulously. 6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Vallampati Sathish Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others1 held that if there is no 1 (2022) 13 SCC 193 3 provision in the rules, there is no need to prepare waiting list and observed in para 15, 16 & 17 as under : “15. On a fair reading of Rule 16 of the 2012 Rules read with the Guidelines referred to hereinabove, once the final selection list is prepared, there shall be no waiting list and posts, if any, are unfilled for any reason whatsoever, shall be carried forward for future recruitment as per sub-rule (5) of Rule 16 of the 2012 Rules. 16. In the present case, the final selection list of 33 candidates was prepared. Thereafter all the selected candidates were called for counselling, but one of the candidates did not report for counselling. The aforesaid event took place after the final selection list was prepared and published. As there was no requirement of preparation of a waiting list, the appellant claiming to be the next in the merit cannot claim any appointment as his name neither figured in the list of the selected candidates nor in any waiting list as there was no provision at all for preparation of the waiting list. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 16 is very clear. Therefore, the post remained unfilled due to one of the candidates in the final list did not appear for counselling and/or accepted the employment. Hence, that post has to be carried forward for the next recruitment. 17. The appellant could have claimed the appointment to the post which remained unfilled 4 provided there is a provision for waiting list as per the statutory provision. In absence of any specific provision for waiting list and on the contrary, there being a specific provision that there shall not be any waiting list and that the post remaining unfilled on any ground shall have to be carried forward for the next recruitment. The appellant herein, thus, had no right to claim any appointment to the post which remained unfilled.” 7. Considering the fact that the petitioner’s name was not in the select list and waiting list was not prepared in absence of the provisions and rules applicable and in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Vallampati Sathish Babu (supra) and similar decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.124/2025 (Sailesh Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another) decided on 19.02.2025, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same deserves to be and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge