1 2026:CGHC:27174 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8317 of 2022 1 - Ali Hasan S/o Laiquek Ahmed Aged About 36 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Korba Road, Lailunga, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Govt. Gajanand Agrawal Post Graduate College Through Its Principal, Sant Mata Karma Ward, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ranjan Tiwari S/o Vijay Tiwari R/o Village Dhanauli, Post Korja, Pendraroad, Gaurela, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Ishaan Saluja, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Anmol Sharma, P.L. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.4 : Shri Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 02.07.2026 NIRMALA RAO 2 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the appointment order dated 29/04/2022 by which the private respondent was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor (Political Science). 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor (Political Science) from the waiting list where the petitioner's name is at serial No. 1. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favor of the petitioner as per the facts & circumstance of the present case, in the interest of justice.” 2) The facts, in brief, are that an advertisement for the post of Assistant Professor in the Higher Education Department was issued by respondent No.2 on 23.1.2019. The last date for submission of application forms was 5.3.2019. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Political Science). The petitioner alongwith other candidates, participated in the selection process, and thereafter, the final select list was published by respondent No.2 on 19.6.2021. The name of respondent No.4 appeared at Sr. No.2 in the merit list, whereas the petitioner was placed at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list under unreserved category. An order of appointment was issued to respondent No.4 on 29.4.2022 and he was posted as Assistant Professor at 3 Government Gajanand Agrawal Post Graduate College, Baloda Bazar. One of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement required candidates serving under any government or semi- government department to submit a No Objection Certificate issued by their previous department. It is pleaded that respondent No.4 was earlier appointed as an Assistant Professor at Government College, Mahendragarh, Haryana vide order dated 11.2.2020. The petitioner sought information under Right to Information and received information to the effect that respondent No.4 had joined the post of Assistant Professor at Government College, Mahendragarh, Haryana on 13.2.2020 but had not submitted a No Objection Certificate at the time of joining on 23.5.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation before respondent No.1 apprising the fact that respondent No.4 has been appointed in contravention of clause 4 of the order of appointment & condition No.7(i) of the advertisement. 3) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would argue that respondent No.4 failed to comply with clause 4 of the order of appointment & condition No.7(i) of the advertisement and despite such noncompliance, secured appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Political Science). He would submit that respondent No.4 was ineligible for appointment as he failed to submit the requisite No Objection Certificate. He would submit that since respondent No.4 was not eligible for appointment, the 4 respondents may be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the said post, as his name is at Sr. No.1 in the waiting-list of candidates under the unreserved category. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that respondent No.4 was selected in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Learned counsel for the State would submit that there was no need to submit NOC issued by the previous employer. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that the petition is misconceived and according to the conditions mentioned in the advertisement and the order of appointment there was no need to submit an NOC from the previous employer. He would submit that the resignation of respondent No.4 was accepted by previous employer on 20.5.2022, whereas, he joined service on 23.5.2022. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The Union of India and Ors. vs. Subit Kumar Das, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1010 and in the matter of Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer vs. Yati Jain and Ors., arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20366 of 2024. They would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5 6) It is not in dispute that the petitioner is placed at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list. Respondent No.4 has already joined the said post and the order of appointment of respondent No.4 has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the NOC was not submitted according to clause 4 of the order of appointment & condition No.7(i) of the advertisement. Be that as it may, if NOC was not submitted by respondent No.4 before the respondent authorities, it is a matter between the State and respondent No.4. 7) In the present case, the petitioner has been placed at Sr. No.1 in the waiting-list. A right accrues in his favour only if any of the selected candidates fails to join for one reason or another, or if the next selection or examination is not held within a reasonable time. A candidate whose name appears in the waiting list, in order of merit, has a right to claim appointment if one of the selected candidate does not join. However, once the selected candidates join their respective posts, right of waiting list candidates extinguish. 8) Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme in the matter of Rajasthan Public Service Commission (supra), while dealing with the scope of waiting list, held in paragraph 81 as under: “81. What is a waiting list? What is the extent of right that could be claimed by a wait-listed candidate for securing an appointment? For answering this question, one may immediately read the decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn. 6 v. State of Gujarat, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591. Relevant extracts from it read as follows: 8. Coming to the next issue, the first question is what is a waiting list?; can it be treated as a source of recruitment from which candidates may be drawn as and when necessary?; and lastly how long can it operate? These are some important questions which do arise as a result of direction issued by the High Court. A waiting list prepared in service matters by the competent authority is a list of 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 eligible and qualified candidates who in order of merit are placed below the last selected candidate. How it should operate and what is its nature may be governed by the rules. Usually it is linked with the selection or examination for which it is prepared. For instance, if an examination is held say for selecting 10 candidates for 1990 and the competent authority prepares a waiting list then it is in respect of those 10 seats only for which selection or competition was held. Reason for it is that whenever selection is held, except where it is for single post, it is normally held by taking into account not only the number of vacancies existing on the date when advertisement is issued or applications are invited but even those which are likely to arise in future within one year or so due to retirement etc. It is more so where selections are held regularly by the Commission. Such lists are prepared either under the rules or even otherwise mainly to ensure that the working in the office does not suffer if the selected candidates do not join for one or the other reason or the next selection or examination is not held soon. A candidate in the waiting list in the order of merit has a right to claim that he may be appointed if one or the other selected candidate does not join. But once the selected candidates join and no vacancy arises due to resignation etc. or for any other reason within the period the list is to operate under the rules or within reasonable period where no specific period is provided then candidate from the waiting list has no right to claim appointment to any future vacancy which may arise unless the selection was held for it. He has no vested right except to the limited extent, indicated above, or when the appointing authority acts arbitrarily and makes appointment from the waiting list by picking and choosing for extraneous reasons. 7 9. A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then the person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. But the view taken by the High Court that since the vacancies have not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting list were liable to be appointed does not appear to be sound. This practice, may result in depriving those candidates who become eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future. If the waiting list in one examination was to operate as an infinite stock for appointments, there is a danger that the State Government may resort to the device of not holding an examination for years together and pick up candidates from the waiting list as and when required. The constitutional discipline requires that this Court should not permit such improper exercise of power which may result in creating a vested interest and perpetrate 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.” 9) Having considered the facts discussed herein-above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no direction can be issued to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Political Science). However, since allegations have been made against respondent No.4 to the effect that he failed to submit a No Objection Certificate to the respondent authorities at the time of joining service, the respondent authorities are directed to enquire into the matter and take an appropriate decision, in accordance with law, 8 within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10) Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi