Judgment:
ORDER
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
1. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide intimation letter dated 23-2-1999 (Annexure P-l), the name of the petitioner was sent through the Employment Exchange, Korba for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade- III. The news item (Annexure P-2), was published in daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar dated 22-3-1999, in this regard. The recruitment process was initiated under the special drive for recruitment on various posts, reserved for the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste women and Scheduled Tribe women, candidates, which remained vacant on account of non-availability of candidates. The selection was made through interview. Name of several persons, including the petitioner, were recommended for appointment. This was a special drive to clear the backlog on account of non-availability of candidates in the general selection method.
3. The petitioner, being Scheduled Caste faced the interview successfully and her name appeared at Serial No. 2 in the main select list for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade- III. Without assigning any reason, though some persons from the select list (Annexure P-2) were appointed, the petitioner was not appointed. In the meantime, it appears that two persons, i.e., respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from the general category were appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-Ill on compassionate basis.
4. It is found that the fact was brought to the notice of the State Government. The Under Secretary, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Backward Classes and Minority Welfare Department, State of Chhattisgarh, by letter dated 18th May, 2001 (filed as Annexure P-7 in W.P. No. 331/2002), addressed to the Collector, Korba, objected to the action that the appointment of the general candidates on compassionate basis, reserved for six selected candidates from the Scheduled Caste category, was unconstitutional. The select list was prepared under the special drive to clear the backlog of the vacant reserved posts. The letter dated 18th May, 2001, reads as under:
mijksDr fo'k; ds laca/k esa ys[k gS fd fo'ks'k HkrhZ vfHk;ku ds rgr vkids }kjk o'kZ 1999 esa mEehnokjkas dk p;u dj fu;qfDr iznku dh xb Fkh A mDr laca/k esa 'kklu ds /;ku esa ;g yk;k x;k gS fd vuqlwfpr tkfr ds 6 p;fur mEehnokjks dsk ;g dgdj fu;qfDr ugh nh xbZ gS fd mDr inkas dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr ds }kjk vU; yksxks dks HkrhZ dj fy;k x;k tks fd fo'ks'k HkrhZ vfHk;ku lafo/kku ds f[kykQ gS A
vr% vkns'kkuqlkj funsZf'kr gS fd vc mDr p;fur 6 mEehnokjks dks ftys esa fjDr inksa ij fu;ekuqlkj fu;qfDr iznku djus dh dk;Zokgh dj dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ls 'kklu dks ;Fkk'kh?kz voxr djkus dk d'V djsa A
5. Despite the letter dated 18th May, 2001, it appears that the Collector, Korba did not take any action and the petitioner remained un-appointed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition on 31-5-2001.
6. In normal course, the petitioner has no indefeasible right to appointment even after his selection. This Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 2057 of 2008 Khirodhar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. relying on various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that 'It is trite law that a candidate, even if, she is successful in the select list, has no indefeasible right to appointment. If the petitioner has no indefeasible right to the appointment, no writ can be issued directing the respondents/authorities to give appointment to the petitioner or any other persons'.
7. Further, this Court in Rajesh Kumar Dewangan v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. 2007(3) M.P.H.T. 22 (CG) held that 'the petitioner does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed on the post of Assistant pursuant to his selection and that no direction can be given to issue appointment letter to the petitioner though he has come out successful in the selection process. But in the facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein the special drive was undertaken to fill-up the vacancies of reserved category candidates and the petitioner was one of the successful candidates, there was no reason to deny the appointment to her. The result remained the same as the vacant post remained vacant, which was reserved for the reserved category candidates.
8. It appears that two candidates from general category were given appointment on compassionate basis, which has been found even by the State Government, as unconstitutional. This is a serious matter where rightful claim of a Scheduled Caste candidate has been denied and two persons from general category have been appointed de hors the constitutional scheme of appointment, without proper selection process. Denial of appointment to the petitioner against the reserve post is unconstitutional and illegal.
9. Having regard to the facts situation of the case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, without expressing any opinion on the appointment of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, as they have already served on the post for about seven years, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State are directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner, forthwith. The petitioner shall be entitled to seniority and salary with effect from the date of her appointment.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The State may recover the cost from the concerned officer, who violated the provisions of Constitution, which enshrines that reserved candidates only must be appointed against the posts reserved for them.