“Waitlist Claim Misconceived”: Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Appeal Over Sanitary Inspector Recruitment, Says No Waiting List Mandated Under 2018 Rules
Safiya Malik
The Chhattisgarh High Court has declined to interfere with the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the recruitment process for the post of Sanitary Inspector under the Urban Administration Department. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal considered the appellant’s grievance regarding the absence of a waiting list for the recruitment process initiated through an advertisement issued on 16.02.2018. The court observed that the selection process was conducted under the applicable recruitment rules, which contained no provision for preparing a waiting list, and noted that “the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the preparation of the wait list is misconceived.” The court also reviewed the appellant’s arguments relating to alleged irregularities in the verification and selection stages but found no error warranting its intervention.
The Bench dismissed the appellant's plea challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29.08.2024 in WPS No. 3709 of 2019. The Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant who sought consideration for appointment against vacancies for the post of Sanitary Inspector under the Urban Administration Department, Chhattisgarh.
The advertisement for filling 57 posts of Sanitary Inspector was issued by the Directorate, Urban Administration Department, Chhattisgarh on 16.02.2018, under the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palik Nigam (Adhikariyon Aur Karmchariyon ki Niyukti tatha Sewa ke Nibandhan evam Shartein) Niyam, 2018 (Rules of 2018), Chhattisgarh Nagarpalika Sewa (Vetanman evam Bhatta) Niyam, 1967 (Rules of 1967), and Chhattisgarh Nagarpalika Karmchari (Bharti tatha Sewa Shartein) Niyam, 1968 (Rules of 1968), along with other circulars issued from time to time.
The appellant participated in the written examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board on 17.09.2018. A provisional select list was published on 05.10.2018 by respondent No.1. However, with the announcement of the Model Code of Conduct for the State Assembly elections on 06.10.2018, the recruitment process was temporarily impacted. The Chief Election Officer, vide order dated 22.11.2018, granted permission to the State to proceed with the selection process during the period of the Model Code of Conduct.
The respondents completed document verification and published a list of eligible and ineligible candidates. On 08.01.2019, the selection process for the posts of Accountant, Sanitary Inspector, and Revenue Inspector was stayed by the department. Subsequently, WPS No. 2403 of 2019 was filed, and on 03.04.2019, this Court directed the respondents to complete the selection process within 90 days. Following this, on 31.05.2019 and 02.08.2019, appointment orders were issued in favour of Ajay Barik and Durgesh Kumar Sahu, respectively.
The appellant’s name did not appear in the select list, and no waiting list was prepared by the department. The appellant thereafter approached the Court claiming that, out of 57 posts, 55 remained vacant and that the respondents failed to consider his appointment despite his eligibility.
Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey and Ms. Maya Chaturvijani submitted that “as the 55 candidates were declared ineligible for the appointment, the respondent-State should have to proceed to for the document verification from the list of eligible candidates who have clear the written-test and were fully eligible for consideration of their candidature for the process of document verification at least to the tune of 1:2 ratio as the Rules of 2018 and thereon.”
The appellant argued that the merit list remained valid for one year and was subsequently extended for six months up to 10.04.2020, and that eligible candidates, including himself, should have been considered for the vacant posts. Counsel submitted that “the action of the respondent authorities is totally illegal and perverse which requires intervention of this Court.”
It was further submitted that “the learned Single Judge in the instant case has based the finding on the fact that there is no vested right for the person in waiting list to get appointment, however, the case remains that the person who were reflected in the selection list were not having the requisite qualification to get appointed.” The appellant contended that “the duty was upon the respondent authority to include the person having the requisite qualification into the select list.”
The appellant also submitted that the respondent authorities committed errors by not verifying candidates’ qualifications in compliance with the Rules of 1968 and the Rules of 2018. It was contended that “the fallacy has resulted in debarring and ousting of eligible candidates by keeping in list the ineligible candidates.” The appellant further argued that under the Rules of 1968, as amended by notification dated 10.03.2017, appointments should have been made by sending names in the order of merit.
The appellant’s counsel submitted that for Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayat, out of 23 available posts, only one appointment was made and 22 posts remained unfilled. Similar submissions were made concerning recruitment under the Rules of 2018 for Municipal Corporations, where it was submitted that names should have been sent in twice the number of vacancies.
It was also argued that under Rule 12(4) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal (Executive/Engineering/Health) Services, Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 2017 (Rules of 2017), a waiting list was required to be prepared. The counsel submitted that “there were 57 posts of Sanitary Inspector, but only 02 candidates were appointed by respondent No. 1 and no waiting list was prepared.” He also submitted that under the 2017 Rules “a select list of 114 candidates ought to have been prepared by the respondents.”
In reply, Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate for the State, submitted that “the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for.” The State submitted that the advertisement dated 16.02.2018 was issued in accordance with the Rules of 2018, Rules of 1967, and Rules of 1968, and that the Rules of 2017 cited by the appellant were not applicable to the present selection process.
The State also submitted that there were a total of 57 posts of Sanitary Inspector distributed across various categories, including 38 posts for the UR category, 11 posts for the ST category, 3 posts for the SC category, and 5 posts for the OBC category. Reservation for women was also detailed, with one post each in the UR and ST categories.
The State further submitted that the appellant’s merit position was too low for consideration for appointment. The State referred to the decision in Vallampati Sathish Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (2022) 13 SCC 193, where the Supreme Court held that in the absence of a statutory provision for the preparation of a waiting list, the authorities were not required to prepare such a list.
The Division Bench observed that “in the Rules of 2017, cited by appellant, there is a provision to prepare a wait list according to Rule 12(4) of the Rules of 2017. But, the advertisement was not issued according to those rules and the same is evident from the advertisement.” The court further recorded that “the advertisement was issued according to the Rules of 2018, Rules of 1967 and the Rules of 1968, therefore, the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the preparation of the wait list is misconceived.”
The court noted that the learned Single Judge had placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vallampati Sathish Babu (supra), where it was recorded that “in the absence of any provision for the preparation of a wait list, a candidate claiming to be next on the merit list cannot be granted appointment.”
Finally, the Division Bench recorded that “considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, 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.”
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Rajeev Kumar Dubey Advocate and Maya Chaturvijani Advocate
For the Respondent: S.S. Baghel Deputy Government Advocate
Case Title: Sailesh Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:8625-DB
Case Number: WA No. 124 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
[Read/Download order]
