1 CGHC010373392026 2026:CGHC:41890 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7094 of 2026 Bhupesh Verma S/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Verma, Aged About 30 Years R/o 1730/7, Shivanand Nagar, Near Samudaik Bhavan, New Balaji Colony, Khamtarai-2 (Khamtarai), Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited (C S P T C L), Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Dangania, Raipur, (C.G.). 3. The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (C S P D C L), Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Dangania, Raipur (C.G.). 4. The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (C S P G C L) Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Dangania, Raipur, (C.G.). 5. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (V Y A P A M), Through Its Controller Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 7095 of 2026 Vikash Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Muneshwar Gupta Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Bhala Sarguja, Vijaynagar, Distt. Sarguja Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited (C S P T C L), Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Dangania, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (C S P D C L), Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Dangania, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (C S P G C L), Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Dangania, Raipur Chhattisgarh JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.09.26 15:56:27 +0530 2 5. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (V Y A P A M) Through Its Controller, Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Naveen Nirala & Mr. Arpan Pradhan, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. For Respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 : Mr. Amrito Das, Senior Advocate (through V.C.) along with Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Rohan Shukla on behalf of Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 26/09/2026 1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the cases, they are being decided by this common order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the advertisement issued for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer in CSPTCL, CSPDCL and CSPGCL, vide Advertisement No. 01-01/PD-03/4786 dated 15.09.2023, the petitioners participated in the selection process for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under the OBC category. Thereafter, the selection list was issued on 23/24.10.2024, wherein the petitioners could not find place. Learned counsel submits that subsequently, several candidates, who had been selected and appointed, resigned from service, resulting in vacancies. Despite availability of such vacancies and the past practice of issuing a waiting list, the respondents have not issued the First Waiting List/Phase-II List. It is further submitted that the petitioners submitted representations before the competent authority and 3 also sought information under the RTI Act, but no effective action has been taken. According to learned counsel, such inaction on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to issue the First Waiting List/Phase-II List and consider the candidature of the petitioners against the available vacancies in accordance with law. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 submits that the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement in question stood concluded in the year 2024 and the selected candidates were duly appointed and joined their respective posts. It is further submitted that, in terms of the Board Resolution dated 22.08.2023, the validity of the select list was only for a period of one year. Thus, even assuming that any waiting list was prepared pursuant to the said recruitment process, the same has already expired in October, 2025 itself and as on date no right can be claimed by the petitioners on that basis. It is also submitted that the vacancies relied upon by the petitioners have arisen subsequently on account of resignation of candidates who had already been selected and joined their respective posts. Such subsequent vacancies, according to learned counsel, do not confer any vested or enforceable right upon the petitioners to seek appointment. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioners cannot seek preparation of a fresh waiting list or consideration of their candidature against vacancies which have arisen subsequently due to resignation of duly appointed candidates. Learned counsel accordingly prays for 4 dismissal of the writ petitions. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The facts, which emerge from the record, are that the recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement No. 01-01/PD-03/4786 dated 15.09.2023 was concluded in the year 2024 and the candidates selected therein were duly appointed and joined their respective posts. The vacancies which are now sought to be relied upon by the petitioners have arisen subsequently on account of resignation of certain candidates after their appointment and joining. 6. The issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners, who were not selected in the original recruitment process, can claim appointment against vacancies which have subsequently arisen due to resignation of candidates who had already joined pursuant to the said selection process. 7. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana and Others, reported in (2023) 10 SCC 54, has held that where a selected candidate joins service and thereafter resigns, the vacancy arising on account of such resignation is a fresh vacancy and cannot be filled up by operating the earlier selection/waiting list, but is required to be dealt with in accordance with the applicable recruitment procedure by issuing a fresh advertisement and undertaking a fresh selection process. 8. Be that as it may, at any rate, no one else in the panel can 5 legitimately contend that he should have been offered appointment either in the vacancy arising on account of the subsequent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising subsequently. If any vacancy arose on account of resignation of an employee, the same has to be filled up by issuing the fresh advertisement alone. 9. In the present case, the respondents have also placed reliance upon the Board Resolution dated 22.08.2023, according to which the validity of the select list is limited to a period of one year. The recruitment process having admittedly been concluded in the year 2024, the petitioners cannot seek revival or preparation of a fresh waiting list after expiry of the prescribed period, particularly for filling up vacancies which arose subsequently on account of resignation of candidates who had already joined service. 10. It is also well settled that a candidate who has not been selected cannot claim appointment merely because a vacancy arises subsequently. More so, in the present case, the vacancies have not arisen due to non-joining of the selected candidates, but on account of their subsequent resignation after joining service. Such vacancies constitute subsequent vacancies and cannot, in the absence of any specific provision in the governing rules, be utilized for conferring an appointment upon the petitioners from the earlier selection process. 11. The contention of the petitioners based upon the alleged past practice of the respondents in issuing a waiting list also does not advance their case. No right can accrue in favour of the 6 petitioners merely on the basis of an alleged past practice, particularly when the recruitment process in question has already attained finality and the validity period of the select list, as asserted by the respondents on the basis of the Board Resolution dated 22.08.2023, has also expired. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have no enforceable right to seek issuance of a First Waiting List/Phase-II List or to claim consideration of their candidature against vacancies which have arisen subsequently on account of resignation of candidates who had already been selected, appointed and joined pursuant to the recruitment process in question. 13. Consequently, no ground is made out for issuance of any direction to the respondents to prepare or operate a fresh waiting list in respect of the recruitment process which stood concluded in the year 2024. If the respondents intend to fill up the vacancies arising subsequently, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with the applicable rules and recruitment procedure. 14. As a sequel, both the writ petitions, being devoid of merit, are accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti 7 Head Note Vacancy arising due to resignation of a duly appointed candidate after joining cannot be filled from the previous selection list and requires fresh recruitment only by issuance of advertisement.