ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of proceedings of constitution of the Committee for selection of Senior and Junior Pilot on contract dated 13.09.2021 and also for quashing of advertisement dated 21.09.2021. 2. The petitioner is an Aircraft Pilot and he is having Airline Transport Pilot License issued by the competent authority. An advertisement was issued on 21.09.2021 for recruitment to one post (unreserved) of Senior Pilot (A) on contract basis. Essential qualifications are i.e. (I) Current Type rated ATPL/CPL [Airline Transport Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes)/Commercial Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes)] on King-Air B200 with at least 50 hours of flying experience as PIC; (II) Minimum 3000 hours of total flying and at least 2000 hours as PIC (Pilot-in-Command) flying experience including 50 hrs night flying and (III) Valid Instrument Rating (IR). 3. The petitioner and other candidates participated in the recruitment process and the petitioner was declared ineligible since he did not have proper endorsement of B200 aircraft on his license. He was lacking in experience of flying minimum 50 hrs PIC of B200 aircraft. 4. After completion of the recruitment process, one Capt. N. Bamal was selected for the post of Senior Pilot whereas the petitioner was at Serial No. 2. On 16.08.2021, a proposal was passed to appoint Capt. N. Bamal as Senior Pilot and to keep the petitioner in waiting list. 5. The selected candidate namely Capt. N. Bamal refused to join the services, and the respondents refused to appoint the petitioner and also cancelled the waiting list, thereafter advertisement for recruitment of Senior Pilot was issued afresh on 21.09.2021. 6. This Court vide order dated 29.10.2021 stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 13.09.2021 and also the issuance of fresh advertisement dated 21.09.2021. 7. Mr. Prafull Bharat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has been granted open rating by Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). He is discharging his duties as Pilot of Boeing-737 Aircraft and his total flying hours amount to 7,020 hours. He would further submit that maximum takeoff weight of Boeing-737 is 1,87,700 lb, whereas maximum takeoff weight of King Air B-200 is 12,500 lb, therefore, there is neither any requirement of endorsement to fly King Air B-200 on license, nor 50 hours flying experience of Air B-200. He would further submit that maximum takeoff weight of Boeing-737 is 1,87,700 lb, whereas maximum takeoff weight of King Air B-200 is 12,500 lb, therefore, there is neither any requirement of endorsement to fly King Air B-200 on license, nor 50 hours flying experience of Air B-200. He would also submit that according to Schedule 2 of the Chhattisgarh Aviation Department (Gazette-Technical) Service Recruitment and Service Condition Rules, 2003, flying experience of total 2000 hours as PIC on Multi-Engine airplane/helicopter is essential however, by putting this clause under the heading of preference, the State has diluted the much needed security measure and also put the lives of VIPs in danger. 8. Next contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that in the present case the authority has not assigned valid reason for quashment of the waiting list and for issuance of advertisement afresh. He would also submit that the respondent authorities have provided training of flying helicopters like SKA B200-A-109, which are being deployed for VIP flight operations, but the petitioner has not been afforded such opportunity. He would further submit that in pursuance of the fresh advertisement, a Senior Pilot has been selected, but the appointment order has not been issued. He would submit the process adopted by the respondents is mala-fide and discriminatory. He has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan vs. Jagdish Chopra, (2007) 8 SCC 161 and Manoj Manu and Another vs. Union of India and Others, (2013) 12 SCC 171 . 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has moved an application for taking additional documents on record, whereby he has placed merit list of Senior Pilot recruited in pursuance of advertisement dated 21.09.2021, wherein Capt. O.K. Tiwari has been found eligible. He has also placed merit list of 2021 where Capt. O.K. Tiwari was found ineligible and thus his submission would be that the candidate who was not found eligible in the recruitment process of 2021 has been held eligible in the recruitment process of 2022. 10. Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3, would submit that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 21.09.2021, seven candidates including the petitioner submitted their application forms and after due scrutiny, only Capt. O.K. Tiwari was found eligible. 10. Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3, would submit that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 21.09.2021, seven candidates including the petitioner submitted their application forms and after due scrutiny, only Capt. O.K. Tiwari was found eligible. He would submit that the petitioner participated in the subsequent advertisement and he was declared ineligible. He would further submit that work of a pilot of VIP aircraft is extremely technical in nature and a pilot is responsible for not only the lives of VIPs and other passengers on board but also for the lives of the people on ground, and in the eventuality of accident or mishap, it may cause loss of life as well as of property. He would further submit that airways; aircraft and air navigation; provision of aerodromes; regulation and organisation of air trafffic and of aerodromes; provision for aeronautical education and training and regulation of such education and training provided by State and other agencies is a matter within exclusive domain of the Union Government and same is provided under List-I i.e. Union List of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. State has to follow the rules and regulations framed by Directorate General of Civil Aviation and qualification prescribed in the circular issued by Civil Aviation Requirement Section 3 - AIR Transport Series ‘C’ Part X dated 2nd June, 2010. Clause 2.2 deals with requirement for grant of permission for undertaking operations which is as under: “2.2. Before the permission for undertaking aircraft operations is issued, an applicant shall: (a) be in possession of an aircraft either by outright purchase or through lease. The aircraft shall be registered in India and shall hold a Certificate of Airworthiness in Normal Passenger category. Aircraft certified in Private category shall not qualify for this purpose. (b) either have its own maintenance organization or have suitable arrangements with any other organization, duly approved by DGCA, for maintenance of the type of aircraft. (c) have a proper aviation organization with adequate management personnel. (d) have adequate number of appropriately licensed flight crew either in their own employment or on deputation basis from Indian Air Force/Indian Army or on contractual basis from State Government or NSOP holders having the requisite flying experience as per Para 6.15, 6.16 and 6.17 of this CAR. (c) have a proper aviation organization with adequate management personnel. (d) have adequate number of appropriately licensed flight crew either in their own employment or on deputation basis from Indian Air Force/Indian Army or on contractual basis from State Government or NSOP holders having the requisite flying experience as per Para 6.15, 6.16 and 6.17 of this CAR. (e) have adequate ground handling facilities to support the operations.” Clause 6.15 deals with operation of VIP flights with fixed wing aircraft. Clause 6.15 is given herein-below: 6.15. When operating VIP flights with fixed wing aircraft, the pilot-in-command shall possess CPL or ATPL with at least 3000 hours including 2000 hours as PIC, 50 hours as PIC on type of aircraft to be flown and 50 hours of night flying experience. In addition, the pilot should have a minimum of 30 hours as PIC experience in the last 6 months including five hours on type in the last thirty days of the intended flight. In case 30 hrs. recency during the last 6 months is not met with, then in last 30 days, a satisfactory skill test (as required for license renewal) shall be carried out followed by 5 hrs. of PIC experience. The training and checks related requirements for pilots flying for State Government/PSUs shall be complied as stipulated in CAR Section 8 Series F Parts I/III/VII/VIII, as applicable. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner was not having experience of operating VIP flight with fixed wing aircraft and he had not experienced flying such aircraft for 50 hours of night flight therefore, he was declared ineligible. Thus, he would submit that the petitioner has no right to claim right of appointment as the Government may decide to fill up or not to fill up the vacancy for valid reasons. His contention is that in this case, State Government has assigned sufficient reasons, therefore, the petition preferred by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit and substance.” 11. Mr. Palash Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, though no return has been filed on its behalf, would submit that the State has to follow the instructions, regulations, rules, circular issued by it. The State has taken decision on the basis of the circular issued by it and there is no infirmity in the decision arrived at by the State Government. 12. The State has taken decision on the basis of the circular issued by it and there is no infirmity in the decision arrived at by the State Government. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed alongwith the instant petition with utmost circumspection. 13. In the matter of Jagdish Chopra (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the validity of select list would remain valid for one year, if the rules are silent on it. In the instant case, the petitioner has not annexed waiting list issued by the State Government, though from document dated 16.08.2021, it appears that there was proposal to place the name of the petitioner in waiting list however; later on, that proposal was withdrawn on 13.09.2021. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that right accrued in his favour, after refusal of the selected candidate is misplaced. 14. In the matter of Manoj Manu (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-12 held as under: “12. It is, thus, manifest that a person whose name is included in the select list, does not acquire any right to be appointed. The Government may decide not to fill up all the vacancies for valid reasons. Such a decision on the part of the Government not to fill up the required/advertised vacancies should not be arbitrary or unreasonable, but must be based on sound, rational and conscious application of mind. Once, it is found that the decision of the Government is based on some valid reason, the Court would not issue any mandamus to the Government to fill up the vacancies.” In the case in hand, the State Government has assigned sufficient reason for cancellation of the proposed waiting list as the petitioner was not having experience of flying AIR B-200 for 50 hours which is a requisite qualification according to the Clause 6.15 of the circular dated 2nd June, 2010. Further, from circular dated 14.07.2021 issued by Directorate General of Civil Aviation, Government of Chhattgisgarh, it is apparent that flying experience as PIC on King-AIR B-200 with at least 50 hours is essential qualification, whereas earlier this criteria was missing in the advertisement, but it is an essential qualification according to circular of Directorate General of Civil Aviation, therefore, it cannot be held that this criteria has been inserted with mala-fide intention to oust the petitioner from race. 15. 15. In Seventh Schedule (Article 246) of the Constitution of India, airways; aircraft and air navigation; provision of aerodromes; regulation and organisation of air traffic and of aerodromes; provision for aeronautical education and training and regulation of such education and training provided by States and other agencies are under List-I i.e. Union List and only the Parliament has exclusive power to make laws in this regard. Therefore, the laws/rules/regulations made by the Parliament would be binding upon the State and further the State is under obligation to follow such rules and regulations. In such a scenario, it cannot be assumed that the State Government in its advertisement dated 21.09.2021 inserted certain essential qualification with mala-fide intention. 16. In the matter of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2022) 5 SCC 179 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with issue of conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation in Para-50 held as under: “50. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Sections 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per the UGC Act every rule and regulation made under the said Act, shall be laid before each House of Parliament. Therefore, being a subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomes part of the Act. In case of any conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution as the subject “education” is in the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Therefore, any appointment as a Vice-Chancellor contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations can be said to be in violation of the statutory provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto.” 17. The next issue would be whether a candidate who was in waiting list acquires any right to appointment. It is well settled law that the State has right not to appoint a candidate even if his name appears in the merit list. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and Others, (1974) 3 SCC 220 in Para-7 held as under: “7. In the present case it appears that about 40 candidates had passed the examination with the minimum score of 45 per cent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and Others, (1974) 3 SCC 220 in Para-7 held as under: “7. In the present case it appears that about 40 candidates had passed the examination with the minimum score of 45 per cent. Their names were published in the Government Gazette as required by Rule 10(1) already referred to. It is not disputed that the mere entry in this list of the name of candidate does not give him the right to be appointed. The advertisement that there are 15 vacancies to be filled does not also give him a right to be appointed. It may happen that the Government for financial or other administrative reasons may not fill up any vacancies. In such a case the candidates, even the first in the list, will not have a right to be appointed. The list is merely to help the State Government in making the appointments showing which candidates have the minimum qualifications under the Rules. The stage for selection for appointment comes thereafter, and it is not disputed that under the Constitution it is the State Government alone which can make the appointments.” 18. For sake of argument, if the name of the petitioner was in waiting list and he was found suitable even then he cannot claim as of right that the Government must accept the recommendation of the Commission. This issue is not res integra and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported as Jatinder Kumar and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1985) 1 SCC 122 in Para-12 held as under: “12.......This, however, does not clothe the appellants with any such right. They cannot claim as of right that the Government must accept the recommendation of the Commission. If, however, the vacancy is to be filled up, the Government has to make appointment strictly adhering to the order of merit as recommended by the Public Service Commission. It cannot disturb the order of merit according to its own sweet will except for other good reasons viz, bad conduct or character. The Government also cannot appoint a person whose name does not appear in the list. But it is open to the Government to decide how many appointments will be made. It cannot disturb the order of merit according to its own sweet will except for other good reasons viz, bad conduct or character. The Government also cannot appoint a person whose name does not appear in the list. But it is open to the Government to decide how many appointments will be made. The process for selection and selection for the purpose of recruitment against anticipated vacancies does not create a right to be appointed to the post which can be enforced by a mandamus. We are supported in our view by the two earlier decisions of this Court in A.N. D' Silva vs. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1130 and State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 . The contention of Mr. Anthony to the contrary cannot be accepted.” 19. In the matter of S.S. Balu and Another vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 479 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the State as an employer has a right to fill up all the posts or not to fill them up. A candidate will have no legal right for claiming a writ in the nature of mandamus unless there is discrimination or arbitrariness in regard to the filling up of the vacancies. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paras-12 and 14 has held as under: “12. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. A person does not acquire a legal right to be appointed only because his name appears in the select list. [See: Pitta Naveen Kumar vs. Narasaiah Zangiti, (2006) 10 SCC 261 ]. The State as an employer has a right to fill up all the posts or not to fill them up. Unless a discrimination is made in regard to the filling up of the vacancies or an arbitrariness is committed, the candidate concerned will have no legal right for obtaining a writ of or in the nature of mandamus. [See: Batiarani Gramiya Bank vs. Pallab Kumar, (2004) 9 SCC 100 ]. In Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 a Constitution Bench of this Court held: (SCC pp. 50-51, Para 7) “7. [See: Batiarani Gramiya Bank vs. Pallab Kumar, (2004) 9 SCC 100 ]. In Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 a Constitution Bench of this Court held: (SCC pp. 50-51, Para 7) “7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.” 14. In Pitta Naveen Kumar vs. Raja Narasaiah Nangiti, (2006) 10 SCC 261 this Court held: (SCC p. 273, Para 32) “32........A candidate does not have any legal right to be appointed. He in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India has only a right to be considered therefor. Consideration of the case of an individual candidate although ordinarily is required to be made in terms of the extant rules but strict adherence thereto would be necessary in a case where the rules operate only to the disadvantage of the candidates concerned and not otherwise.” 20. In the matter of Kulwinder Pal Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2016) 6 SCC 532 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the name of a candidate may appear in the merit list but he has no indefeasible right to seek an appointment. In Paras-10 to 12, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “10. It is fairly well settled that merely because the name of a candidate finds place in the select list, it would not give him indefeasible right to get an appointment as well. In Paras-10 to 12, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “10. It is fairly well settled that merely because the name of a candidate finds place in the select list, it would not give him indefeasible right to get an appointment as well. The name of a candidate may appear in the merit list but he has no indefeasible right to an appointment [vide Food Corporation of India vs. Bhanu Lodh, (2005) 3 SCC 618 , All India SC/ST Employees' Assn. vs. A. Arthur Jeen, (2001) 6 SCC 380 and UPSC vs. Gaurav Dwivedi, (1999) 5 SCC 180 ]. 11. This Court again in State of Orissa vs. Rajkishore Nanda, (2010) 6 SCC 777 , held as under: (SCC p. 783, Paras 14 and 16) “14. A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. The vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate. *** *** *** 16. A select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments, that vacancy can be filled up taking the names from that list as and when it is so required.’ 12. In Manoj Manu vs. Union of India, (2013) 12 SCC 171 , it was held that (SCC p. 176), Para 10) merely because the name of a candidate finds place in the select list, it would not give the candidate an indefeasible right to get an appointment as well. It is always open to the Government not to fill up the vacancies, however such decision should not be arbitrary or unreasonable. Once the decision is found to be based on some valid reason, the Court would not issue any mandamus to the Government to fill up the vacancies. As noticed earlier, because twenty-two other candidates were declared successful by the Supreme Court pertaining to the selection of the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 as Civil Judges (Junior Division), they were to be accommodated, as rightly resolved by the Administrative Committee in the meeting dated 6-7-2011. As noticed earlier, because twenty-two other candidates were declared successful by the Supreme Court pertaining to the selection of the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 as Civil Judges (Junior Division), they were to be accommodated, as rightly resolved by the Administrative Committee in the meeting dated 6-7-2011. The three resultant vacancies of the year 2007-2008 stood consumed with the joining of the said seventeen candidates and the same could not be filled up from the select list of that year. The decision of the Administrative Committee observing that the three resultant vacancies stood consumed is based on factual situation arising there and cannot be said to be arbitrary.” 21. From the documents filed by the respondent No. 1 to 3, it is reflected that the petitioner has participated in the advertisement issued on 21.09.2021 and he has been declared ineligible, whereas one Capt. O.K. Tiwari has been found eligible. The petitioner on one hand has participated in the selection process and on the other hand he has challenged the selection process. The petitioner cannot be permitted to ‘blow hot-blow cold’ or ‘fast and loose’ or ‘approbate and reprobate’ at the same time. 22. In the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and further taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the denial of appointment to the petitioner on the part of the State Government is reasonable and there is no infirmity in the entire decision making process and the decision has not been taken in arbitrary or mala-fide manner. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the instant petition being devoid of merits and substance and it is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No orders as to the costs.