A waiting list candidate has no right to appointment after the expiry of the waiting list's validity period, and the burden of proving parity with other appointees lies on the claimant.

CAV ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by respondent No. 1 by which the candidature of the petitioner who was wait list candidate on the post of Assistant Professor, Computer Science has been rejected though the one post of Assistant Professor Computer Science reserved for SC candidate is lying vacant on account of non-joining by one Ram Ratan Khunte.

2. The brief facts as reflected from records are that-

A) On 23.01.2019, the C.G. Public Service Commission (CGPSC) issued an advertisement for several posts including the backlog posts of Assistant Professor, Computer Science and the petitioner being qualified having requisite qualification applied for the said post on Scheduled Caste Category, final select list was issued on 30.06.2021, wherein the petitioner found place in the waiting list at Serial No. 1 in the S.C. Category. Pursuant to the said final select list, the appointment orders were issued on 21.01.2022, 22.02.2022, 26.05.2022, 08.08.2022 & 31.05.2023.

B) It is submitted that one of the selected candidates namely Ram Ratan Khunte applied for the post in two streams i.e. Assistant Professor, Computer Science and Assistant Professor, Computer Application and in both the streams he got selected, therefore, he opted to choose against the post of Assistant Professor, Computer Application and preferred an application on 07.07.2023 before the respondent authorities informing that since he joined in Computer Application stream, he does not want to join on the post of Computer Science.

C) The petitioner preferred a representation on 22.08.2023 before the respondent authorities stating that his name is in the waiting list at Serial No. 1 in S.C. Category and the selected candidate namely Ram Ratan Khunte has not joined the said post, therefore, he may be appointed against the post of Assistant Professor, Computer Science. The representation dated 22.08.2023 preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by respondent authorities vide order dated 30.04.2024 which has been assailed by the petitioner in this petition.

3. The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission/respondent No. 3 has filed its reply mainly contending that the petitioner is claiming appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science) as he was a waiting list candidate, but the computation of the validity period of the supplementary list starts from the date of publication from the final select list i.e. 30.06.2021. It has also been contended that as per the provisions of Rule 12(3) & (7) of the Chhattisgarh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch, Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2019, only a one-time extension can be granted for extending the validity period of the select & waiting list. Accordingly, the select and supplementary list is valid only up to 30.06.2023 and till this date, there has been no communication made by the department for providing the name candidate from the waiting list. However, the petitioner submitted his representation on 22.08.2023 i.e., after expiry of the validity period of the waiting list. It has been further contended that in light of the above submissions there is no illegality or infirmity in the selection process therefore, does not call for any interference in the impugned order and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. The State has filed its reply mainly contending that the petitioner and other candidates applied for appointment on the said post and the result was declared and finally on 30.06.2021 the select and waiting list was published by the respondent/CGPSC in which the respondent/CGPSC selected and recommended the name of one Ram Ratan Khunte for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Application) and also on the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science) and the petitioner was placed in the waiting list at Serial No. 1 by the respondent/CGPSC. It is further contended that the respondent Department issued appointment order