ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction/order against the respondent authorities to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner against the post of Assistant Professor (History) w.e.f. 15.7.2015 when the other candidate namely Ajay Pal Singh was given appointment giving by virtue of modified select list dated 7.8.2014 (Annexure -P/3). 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction/order against the respondent authorities to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner in parity with the other candidate namely Ajay Pal Singh was given appointment w.e.f 15.7.2015. 10.3 The petitioner had produced the records which were available to him, however respondents may be directed to produce the entire records pertaining to the subject area of present case. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are as under :- (i) On 20.05.2009, the respondent No.3-Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for short ‘the CGPSC) published an advertisement in employment news namely ‘Rozgar Aur Niyojan’ vide Advertisement No. 01/2009/Pariksha/dated 15.05.2009 (Annexure P/1) for numerous posts of Assistant Professor in different subjects and a combined competitive examination was scheduled to be conducted as per the prescribed rules. (ii) The petitioner having fulfilled all the requisite qualification applied for the post of Assistant Professor (History) ‘subject code-05’ against Other Backward Class. The application form of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent authorities and the respondent CGPSC allotted her a Roll No.109101, Bar Code-112690. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the examination conducted on 29.11.2009 and 30.11.2009 by the respondent CGPSC for the post of Assistant Professor (History). (iii) After completion of written examination, an interview was held by the respondent CGPSC for the 10 posts of Assistant Professor (History) and for that 30 candidates were invited including petitioner, which was in a reasonable ratio of 1:3. (iii) After completion of written examination, an interview was held by the respondent CGPSC for the 10 posts of Assistant Professor (History) and for that 30 candidates were invited including petitioner, which was in a reasonable ratio of 1:3. On 11.09.2012, the respondent CGPSC declared a select list (Annexure P/2) for the 08 posts of Assistant Professor (History), which was based on marks obtained by the candidates in written examination and interview, in that list the name of the petitioner could not find place. On the bottom of the list, the respondent CGPSC mentioned a tip that two posts (one post of UR(F) and one post of SC category) of Assistant Professor (History) were kept vacant due to pendency of writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, decision to fill those two posts would be taken in future as per further order of the Hon’ble Court. (iv) On 07.08.2014, the respondent CGPSC issued a modified select list (Annexure P/3) of 10 candidates and a waiting list was also declared in which the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 3 putting remark as ‘UR_W+OBC_W’. According to the petitioner, one selected candidate namely Shivali Pandey, who was at Sl. No.4 in the modified select list dated 07.08.2014, relinquished her post and after relinquishment of the post by said Shivali Pandey, one post of UR_F has fallen vacant and the petitioner who is at Sl. No.3 who is ‘UR_W+OBC_W’ in the waiting list dated 07.08.2014 is entitled to occupy the vacant post of UR_F. (v) According to the petitioner, as per the Point No.19.2 of the ‘Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Procedure Rule’ published in Chhattisgarh Gazette dated 01.11.2014, the life of waiting list would be upto one and half yer from the date of publication of the waiting list. By virtue of point no. 19.2 of the said Rule, the waiting list dated 07.08.2014 issued by the respondent CGPSC would subsist upto February, 2016. (vi) Further, according to the petitioner, one candidate namely Aeo Lal filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No.7614/2010 before this Hon’ble High Court claiming age relaxation on the basis of circular issued by the State Government, which grants benefit of age relaxation of two years to those candidates who have ‘Green Card’. (vi) Further, according to the petitioner, one candidate namely Aeo Lal filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No.7614/2010 before this Hon’ble High Court claiming age relaxation on the basis of circular issued by the State Government, which grants benefit of age relaxation of two years to those candidates who have ‘Green Card’. The said writ petition was disposed off on 02.02.2015 (Annexure P/5) with following observation :- Para – 3 “that, three posts of unreserved category are lying vacant but while considering the case of the petitioner, the case of other persons of different categories will also be considered.” Para – 4 ‘in these circumstances the present case is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment against the three vacant posts of unreserved category in accordance with law provided the petitioner is found eligible therefor. While considering the case of the petitioner, the respondents may also consider the case of other persons of different categories.’ (vii) Thereafter, in view of the aforesaid order dated 02.02.2015 and Rule of CGPSC, the petitioner preferred series of representations before the respondent authorities striking there attention towards relevant provisions and subsequent development that has taken place. However, all the representation and efforts of the petitioner fallen to deaf ear of respondent authorities so that the life of waiting list i.e. one and half year may pass away. According to the petitioner, on 26.02.2015, a letter (Annexure P/7) has been written by the Additional Director, Directorate, Higher Education, Raipur to the Secretary of Higher Education Department, Raipur, seeking approval from CGPSC so that appointment order may be issued in favour of the candidates who are in waiting list including the name of the petitioner. Similarly, the Officer on Special Duty, Higher Education Department, Raipur also wrote a letter dated 22.08.2015 (Annexure P/8) to the Secretary, CGPSC, informing him the development that has taken place in the matter and also informed to the authority that the concerned department has accorded administrative approval for appointment of Ajay Pal Singh (UR), Nitin Pandey (UR) and Deepti Pardhi (OBC-F). Ajay Pal Singh (UR) has been granted appointment to the post of the Assistant Professor (History) vide order dated 15.07.2015. Now, for the petitioner and one Nitin Pandey, the Secretary CGPSC has been requested to accord approval for their appointment from the waiting list. Ajay Pal Singh (UR) has been granted appointment to the post of the Assistant Professor (History) vide order dated 15.07.2015. Now, for the petitioner and one Nitin Pandey, the Secretary CGPSC has been requested to accord approval for their appointment from the waiting list. (viii) According to the petitioner, she is entitled to get the appointment order against the vacant post of the Assistant Profession (History), reserved for UR (Female) on the basis of order dated 02.02.2015 passed in W.P.(S) No.7614/2015; in view of Point No.19.2 of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Procedure-Rule published in Chhattisgarh Gazette dated 01.11.2014; letter dated 22.08.2015 written by the Officer on Special Duty, Higher Education, Department, Raipur to the Secretary CGPSC and that one Ajay Pal Sing (UR) has been granted appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (History) vide order dated 15.07.2015. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 07.08.2014, the respondent No.3- CGPSC issued a modified select list of 10 candidates and waiting list was also declared, wherein the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.3. One selected candidate namely Shivali Pandey, who was at Sl. No.4 in the modified select list dated 07.08.2014, relinquished her post, therefore, after relinquishment of the post by said Shivali Pandey, one post of Unreserved Female has fallen vacant and the petitioner, who is at Sl. No.3 under ‘UR_W+OBC_W’ category in the waiting list dated 07.08.2014, is entitled to occupy the vacant post of Unreserved Female. Learned counsel further submits that on 26.02.2015, Additional Director, Directorate, Higher Education, Raipur, has written a letter to the Secretary of Higher Education Department, Raipur, seeking approval from CGPSC so that appointment order may be issued in favour of the candidates who are in waiting list, including the petitioner herein. It was also informed to the authority that the concerned department has accorded administrative approval for appointment of Ajay Pal Singh (UR), Nitin Pandey (UR) and Deepti Pardhi (OBC-F). Ajay Pal Singh (UR) has been granted appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (History) vide order dated 15.07.2015, now for the petitioner and one Nitin Pandey, the Secretary, CGPSC, has been requested to accord approval for their appointment from the waiting list. Despite several letters written by the officers of the respondent department, the respondent CGPSC is not approving the selection of the petitioner. Despite several letters written by the officers of the respondent department, the respondent CGPSC is not approving the selection of the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that it is clear case of discrimination and arbitrariness on the part of the respondent authorities who have issued appointment order in favour of Ajay Pal Singh who was in the same waiting list in which the name of the petitioner was there. Pick and choose formula has been adopted by the respondent authorities while giving appointment to the candidates which is seriously condemnable. Learned counsel also submits that the case of the petitioner squarely covers by the decision dated 02.02.2015 of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No.7614/2015. The conduct of the respondent authorities are violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Reliance has been placed on the decisions dated 28.10.2015, 02.07.2018, 23.04.2013 and 27.04.2022 of this Hon’ble Court passed in W.P.(S) No.2446/2015 [Sumit Kumar Gupta v. State of C.G. & Ors.], W.P.(S) No.2800/2017 [Vijay Pandey v. State of C.G. & Ors.], W.A. No.92/2013 [Ishwar Sharan Gupta v. State of C.G. & Ors.] and W.A. No.206/2022 [Lokesh Ahirwar & Ors. v. State of C.G. & Ors.], respectively. 5. Learned counsel for State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the main dispute is between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 & the petitioner has not prayer for any specific and effective relief against the respondent/State and the respondent/State is only a formal party. 6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that after receiving letter dated 23.01.2015, the respondents-CGPSC considered the recommendation for fulfillment of vacant post and proceeding in this respect are contained in the note sheet. It is specifically mentioned in the note sheet that after issuance of merit list wherein 30% women posts are fulfilled and thereafter in accordance with C.G.P.S.C. Rule, 2014, waiting list/supplementary list was prepared and in accordance with that the name of the petitioner is at Sl. No. 3, whereas there are two unreserved male candidates are above the petitioner. In this note sheet, it was ordered to submit the name of candidates from waiting list in accordance with the rule. Thereafter, as per the rule, the name of candidate whose name was at Sl. No. 3, whereas there are two unreserved male candidates are above the petitioner. In this note sheet, it was ordered to submit the name of candidates from waiting list in accordance with the rule. Thereafter, as per the rule, the name of candidate whose name was at Sl. No.1 in the waiting list/supplementary list i.e. Ajay Pal Singh was considered and his name was accordingly recommended for appointment vide letter dated 17.03.2015. Learned counsel further submits that vide letter dated 22.08.2015, Higher Education Department, after appointment of Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, requested the respondents-CGPSC for fulfillment of two more posts since the other candidates not joined, whereas it is apparent from the letter itself that there are three posts vacant and only one person given joining by order dated 15.07.2015 and since two posts are remained vacant, therefore, the name of Shalini Pandey and Deepti Pardhi (present petitioner) be considered for fulfillment of vacant post. Learned counsel also submits that Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gore has joined the post and thereafter resigned from the post and his resignation was accepted by the Department and thereafter, he was relieved from his duty on 11.06.2013 and thereafter since the person i.e. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh has joined on the post so this post cannot be considered in the category wherein selected candidates not joined on the post. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is not challenging the vires of Rule 18 of Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Procedural Rule, 2014. Rule 18 of the CGPSC Procedural Rule, 2014 provides that no separate list for woman candidate will be prepared and gender will not be considered while preparing the waiting list. 7. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has preferred this petition without impleading the appointed candidate Ajay Pal Singh, whose name was at serial No.1 in supplementary list and he was given appointment vide order dated 15.07.2015, as such, the instant petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is not in dispute in this case that in recommendation letter dated 22.08.2015 (Annexure P/8), the petitioner’s name was at serial No.3. 10. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is not in dispute in this case that in recommendation letter dated 22.08.2015 (Annexure P/8), the petitioner’s name was at serial No.3. 10. This Court in the matter of Vijay Pandey (W.P.(S) No.2800/2017) (supra) held in para 14 as under :- “14.The very principles that are laid down from the aforesaid judgments is that when candidates in waiting list are not being appointed despite vacancy and the advertised post not being filled up, the requirement is that the appointing authority should be able to provide legally acceptable justifiable reasons for non appointment of the candidates in the waiting list. The inaction on the part of the government in not taking action for filing up of the vacant post form among the wait lit candidate on account of selected candidate not joining the office without any justifiable reason appears to be arbitrary, bad in law and illegal. The action on the part of the respondents becomes all the more arbitrary for the reason that both the State Govt. at the first instance and the PSC thereafter had made correspondence with each other showing their interest in filling up of the vacant post that arose on account of non joining of the selected candidate from among the wait list. It is under such circumstances that a right stands created in favour of the petitioner.” 11. In the matter of Sumit Kumar Gupta (WPS No.2446/2015) (supra) held in para 12 as under :- “12. Going by the afore-stated statement of law and applying to the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that one post of Constable (Trade Man) (Water Carrier) could not be filled from amongst the selected candidate within the period of one year from the date of publication of select list i.e. 17.7.2014. The petitioner within the period of one year staked his claim for consideration and when his case was not considered, filed this writ petition on 7.7.2015. The official respondent was obliged to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment within the period of one post is vacant and life of the select list expired during the pendency of the writ petition.” 12. In the matter of Ishwar Sharan (W.A. No.92/2013) (supra) this Court observed in para 39 and 40 as under :- “39. The official respondent was obliged to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment within the period of one post is vacant and life of the select list expired during the pendency of the writ petition.” 12. In the matter of Ishwar Sharan (W.A. No.92/2013) (supra) this Court observed in para 39 and 40 as under :- “39. In our opinion, in case the State Government was under a misconception that it cannot appoint a person unless the validity of the list was extended by the PSC and does not appoint him for this reason then its penalty cannot be imposed upon the Appellant: he cannot be denied appointment on this ground. 40. The appointment to the Appellant has been denied unreasonably for no fault of his. Firstly, the PSC unnecessarily delayed in sending the name and then the State Government wrongly assumed that list was not valid unless the PSC extended its validity. In our opinion it is a fit case in which, a direction should be issued to the State to appoint the Appellant if he is otherwise fit and there is no other objection.” 13. It is not disputed by the respondent authorities that by letter dated 22.08.2015 (Annexure P/8), the petitioner’s name was recommended for vacant post. It is also not disputed that in the same list, candidate namely A.P. Singh, who was at Sl. No.1, was posted/appointed and some posts are still lying vacant in the Department on account of non-joining and resignation by some candidates. Since, by the letter dated 22.08.2015 (Annexure P/8) of Higher Education Department, Govt. of C.G., under which the petitioner has to be worked/appointed, has already received administrative approval on account of non-joining and resignation by some candidates, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner who is at Sl. No.3 in the waiting list, and from the same list one candidate namely A.P. Singh has already been appointed and some posts are still lying vacant in the Department, the petitioner is deserving candidate to be appointed on the post of Assistant Professor (History). 14. No.3 in the waiting list, and from the same list one candidate namely A.P. Singh has already been appointed and some posts are still lying vacant in the Department, the petitioner is deserving candidate to be appointed on the post of Assistant Professor (History). 14. For all the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in the light of observation made by co-ordinate Bench in the above referred cases, the respondents are directed to ensure steps for considering the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment for the post of Assistant Professor (History) preferably within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 15. It is also directed that the petitioner would also be entitled for seniority and she should be placed right below those who were appointed from the same process of selection. Since the petitioner has not, in the intervening period, discharged her duties, she would not be entitled for any monetary benefits. The intervening period has to be notionally fixed and the petitioner would be entitled for the monetary benefits only from the date she assumes her duties. 16. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions to the respondents.