1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey and Ms. Maya Chaturvijani, learned counsel for the appellant Nos. 1 & 3 to 8, Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for appellant No.2 as well as Mr.Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 89 days in filing the instant appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

4. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 1844 of 2020 (Rajesh Kumar Ogrey & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

5. Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement for 57 posts of Sanitary Inspector was issued by the Directorate, Urban Administration Department, Chhattisgarh on 16.02.2018 pursuant to the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palik Nigam (Adhikariyon Aur Karmchariyon ki Niyukti tatha Sewa ke Nibandhan evam Shartein) Niyam, 2018 (for short, ‘Rules of 2018); Chhattisgarh Nagarpalika Sewa (Vetanman evam Bhatta) Niyam, 1967 (for short, ‘Rules of 1967’); Chhattisgarh Nagarpalika Karmchari (Bharti tatha Sewa Shartein) Niyam, 1968 (for short, ‘Rules of 1968’) and subsequent circulars and instructions issued from time to time. The last date for submission of the online application form was 07.03.2018. The appellants have participated in the written examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board on 17.09.2018. A provisional select list was published by respondent No. 1 on 05.10.2018 and thereafter, Model Code of Conduct for State Assembly elections came into force from 06.10.2018 till 24.12.2018. Chief Election Officer vide order dated 22.11.2018 granted permission to the State to fill up the posts of Sanitary Inspector during the currency of Model Code of Conduct. Respondents called candidates for verification of documents and thereafter, a list of eligible and ineligible candidates was published. Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 08.01.2019 stayed the selection process for the posts of Accountant, Sanitary Inspector & Revenue Inspector. Being aggrieved by the same, WPS No. 2403 of 2019 and batch of petitions were filed before this Court which were disposed of on 03.04.2019 and respondents therein were directed to complete the selection process within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of such order. On 07.05.2019, a decision was taken to issue appointment orders to the selected candidates within 30 days. The department issued appointment orders in favour of only two candidates i.e. Ajay Barik and Durgesh Kumar Sahu on 31.05.2019 & 02.08.2019, respectively. Names of the petitioners were not in the select list and no waiting list was prepared by the department. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed WP(S) No. 1844/2020 and another similarly situated petitioner has filed WP(S) No. 3709 of 2019 claiming appointment to the post of Sanitary Inspector on the ground that out of a total of 57 posts, 55 posts are still lying vacant. Both the writ petitions have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide common order dated 29.08.2024.

6. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the said common order passed by the learned Single Judge, against which the petitioner in WP(S) No. 3709 of 2019 has already filed a writ appeal being WA No. 124 of 2025, challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2025.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that the person who were having the requisite qualification can only be placed into the final selection list and it not open for the respondent authorities to arbitrary place the persons into final selection list according to their whims and fancies as out of 57 candidates only 02 candidates were eligible and they were appointed and rest 55 candidates were declared ineligible for the appointment, the respondent-State should have to proceed for the document verification from the list of eligible candidates who have cleared 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. They further submitted that the respondent-Department had refused to recruit the appellant into the said post inspite of the fact that the merit list was alive and valid. According to the advertisement, the validity of selection list was for the one year which was further extended for the period of 06 months upto 10.04.2020. They also submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Mukul Kumar Tyagi V. State of UP, (2020) 4 SCC 86. Since the present appellants have the requisite qualification, therefore, they must have been placed in the waiting list at the first place and they can only be replaced by the person having the requisite qualification. They contended that the impugned judgment has made the basis for its reasoning to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vallampati Sathish Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2022) 13 SCC 193 to hold that as there was no provision for preparation of waiting list, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim their appointment as matter of right, however, the said judgment is operating and governing the set of facts which are distinguishable from the present set of facts.

8. It has been pointed out by learned State counsel that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 124 of 2025 (Sailesh Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another) vide order dated 19.02.2025 and since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 124 of 2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record.

10. In the Rules of 2017, cited by appellants, 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 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.

11. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 124 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 124 of 2025.

12. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 19.02.2025 passed in WA No. 124 of 2025.