ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs: “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writs, orders, directions by commanding the respondent authorities, particularly Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 4), for issuing the appointment letter and consequential thereto in favour of the petitioner, in pursuant to the advertisement dated 28/12/2011 (Annexure P-2), as the petitioner has been selected to the aforesaid post and further by directing the Respondent Authorities to forthwith grant the regular appointment to your petitioner in the post of Assistant Grade-III at Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon, in compliance to the Correspondences (Annexure P-7 & P-8). (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondents authorities for its kind perusal. (iii) Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that, in the year 2000, the petitioner was appointed as Community Organizer in the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 4) on contractual basis and since then the petitioner is working regularly therein and her term of service has been extended from time to time. The petitioner since the date of appointment to the post of Community Organizer in the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 4), has discharged her duties to the utmost satisfaction of her superiors and has never given any chance of under performance. During her tenure of service, the petitioner has obeyed all the orders and had worked and functioned as an all-rounder in the office of Respondent No. 4. On 28/12/2011, the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 4) has issued an advertisement for direct recruitment of one post as Assistant Grade-III in the reserved category as Scheduled Tribe. 3. The petitioner along with other candidates after perusing the advertisement has filled the form by submitting all the necessary documents expedient in the terms and clauses of advertisement dated 28/12/2011. After receiving the forms and documents, the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 4) has sort listed and had issued the list of candidates who are eligible. 3. The petitioner along with other candidates after perusing the advertisement has filled the form by submitting all the necessary documents expedient in the terms and clauses of advertisement dated 28/12/2011. After receiving the forms and documents, the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 4) has sort listed and had issued the list of candidates who are eligible. The petitioner was one of them who was sort listed and the name of the petitioner is at Serial No. 3, in the list of eligible list. On 20/01/2012, the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 4) has issued a letter to the petitioner for her appearance as interview to be held on 31/01/2012, in the office of Joint Director, Town Administration & Development, Sarguja Division (Respondent No. 8). Thereafter, on 31/01/2012, the petitioner had appeared in the interview held in the office of Joint Director, Town Administration & Development, Sarguja Division (Respondent No. 8) and then the District Selection Committee after verifying the records and on the basis of merit, have made the recommendation for appointing the petitioner to the aforesaid post of Assistant Grade-III, in the office of Respondent No. 4, as the petitioner was found to be most suitable and deserved candidate for selecting to the aforesaid post. On 12/03/2012, the office of Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 7) has made a correspondence to the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 4) for further proceeding in appointing the petitioner to the aforesaid post, in compliance of the selection done by the District Selection Committee on 31/01/2012, but to the words of hamper, the office of Respondent No. 4, instead of heeding to the correspondence made by the Respondent No. 7 and Respondent No. 8, is sitting barren and introvert over the constitutional right of the petitioner to be appointed as Assistant Grade-III, after duly been selection in pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure P-2). 4. On 17/04/2013, office of Joint Director, Sarguja Division (Respondent No. 8) has again made a correspondence to the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 4) for summoning the necessary documents, as to what step has been taken after the order passed by the District Selection Committee on 31/01/2012. 4. On 17/04/2013, office of Joint Director, Sarguja Division (Respondent No. 8) has again made a correspondence to the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 4) for summoning the necessary documents, as to what step has been taken after the order passed by the District Selection Committee on 31/01/2012. During all these correspondences made from the office of authorities, the petitioner has also approached to the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 4) by seeking the necessary information as to why the appointment order has not been issued to the petitioner till date. Then the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 4) has given the oral information and had supplied the copy of complaint made by some persons against the petitioner, in respect to her computer qualification. As the aforesaid complaint was addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister (Government of Chhattisgarh), so through the proper channel, the office of Collector Jashpur (Respondent No. 5) on 06/02/2012 has addressed to Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 7) for inquiring about the complaint and submitting the report. On 12/03/2012, the office of Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pathalgaon has already made a correspondence to the Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon for further proceeding in the selection of petitioner to the post of Assistant Grade-III, which implies that, the inquiry has been accomplished then only the office of Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pathalgaon has proceeded in making correspondence to the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon. So on 18/06/2013, the petitioner has made a representation to the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon, but till date all about one year has been elapsed, no action has been taken by the Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon, nor any order of appointment or rejection of candidature has been issued from the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon. 5. It is stated that the present petitioner is shouldered with the responsibilities of her family to maintain and provide basic necessities of life and petitioner is working in the office of Respondent No. 4, since 2000 and when the time has arisen for squeezing the fruit of regular service on been selected to the post of Assistant Grade-III, for the long patience of wait and watch, then the office of Respondent No. 4, is depriving petitioner from the aforesaid benefit, which has actually been granted to petitioner from the correspondences passed by the Respondents No. 7 & 8 from time to time. The financial stringency has cropped up and now the petitioner is helpless and inevitable to chore her domesticity and petitioner along with her family members will be bluntly and severally affected if the inaction of Respondent No. 4, would reach its unbearable target, hence this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of Respondent Authorities is arbitrary, illegal and unjust, and is depriving the fundamental right of petitioner, by making fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution of India and the Principles of Natural Justice. He submits that the Respondents are bound by the law and/or on the basis of principles of legitimate expectation to make equality and equal treatment with all the citizen and not discrimination, as and when the orders (Annexure P-7 & P-8) having been passed from the office of Respondents No. 7 & 8. The inaction for not deciding the representation made by petitioner to the respondent authorities (Annexure P-11), and by not granting the benefits of appointment and its consequential benefits to petitioner is a deliberate act of Respondent Authorities with unlawful intention to deprive her fundamental rights for some pecuniary benefit and gain. He further submits that the act of Respondent Authorities is punitive and discriminatory in nature and petitioner cannot be precluded from her claim of appointment in such an illegal vogue. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3 & 5 to 8/State submits that the District Selection Committee has recommended the name of petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade III, but in the meantime, prior to the approval of the President-in-Council, a complaint has been made to the various authorities including the Collector, District Jashpur against the recruitment process initiated by the respondent No. 4, and therefore, the same was not placed before the President-in-Council for its approval. Copy of the complaint is Annexure R/3. In response to the aforesaid complaint, the Collector, District Jashpur has ordered for its inquiry and for which the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Patthalgaon has been appointed as Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 06/02/2012 (Annexure R/4). During the pendency of the inquiry, the validity of the select list prepared by the District Selection Committee has expired, because as per the prevailing executive instructions, the validity of the select list is for one year only. During the pendency of the inquiry, the validity of the select list prepared by the District Selection Committee has expired, because as per the prevailing executive instructions, the validity of the select list is for one year only. Copy of the executive instructions issued by the then State of Madhya Pradesh dated 13/03/1987 is Annexure R/5. It has clearly been mentioned in clause 15 that after expiry of one year of the select list, the Municipal Council would not be authorized to pass proposal for appointment from the said select list. The validity of select list had been expired on 31/01/2013 as the same has issued on 01/02/2012. Ultimately the President-in-Council of the respondent No. 4 has passed a resolution dated 01/07/2013 for initiating fresh recruitment process for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III (Annexure R/6), therefore, in the light of the said executive instructions, the action taken by the respondent No. 4 for conducting fresh recruitment process for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade III is just, proper and legal and there is no infirmity or illegality in the same. Hence, the instant petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 submits that as per the executive instructions dated 13.03.1987, the validity of the select list is only for one year. The Municipal Council would not be authorized to pass proposal for appointment from the said select list and the validity of said select list had been expired on 31/01/2013. Ultimately the President-in-Council of the respondent has passed a resolution dated 01/07/2013 for initiating fresh recruitment process for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III (Annexure R/4-6), therefore, this petition is without any merit and liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard the contentions put forth by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 10. It is not disputed in this case that the petitioner was selected on the post of Assistant Grade-III and her name was recommended for appointment on this post as per Annexure P/6 & P/7. The respondents stated that on some complaints, the Collector, Jashpur vide order dated 06.02.2012 (Annexure R/4-4) instruct the Sub-Divisional Officer, Patthalgaon to inquire the matter and submit his report, but till date no report was submitted by the respondents. The respondents stated that on some complaints, the Collector, Jashpur vide order dated 06.02.2012 (Annexure R/4-4) instruct the Sub-Divisional Officer, Patthalgaon to inquire the matter and submit his report, but till date no report was submitted by the respondents. Definitely, the name of petitioner was recommended on 01.02.2012 and order of inquiry was issued on 06.02.2012. The respondents have not apprised this Court about the report of inquiry, nor they stated anything about the same in their return, and simply after lapse of one year as per Annexure R/4-6, the President-in-Council on 01.07.2013 cancelled the selection procedure as under: ^^Ádj.k] ÁLrqr gqvk] foxr o"kZ bl fudk; }kjk Jherh 'k'kh ÁHkk vks>k dh fu;qfDr lh/kh HkrhZ esa lgk;d xzsM&03 ds in ij ftyk p;u lfefr }kjk fd;k x;k FkkA Ádj.k esa vc rd dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha fd;k x;k gS] ,d o"kZ ls vf/kd O;;hr gks tkus ds dkj.k fu;qfDr dh dk;Zokgh fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA iqu% lh/kh HkrhZ ds ek/;e ls HkrhZ dh dk;Zokgh fd;k tkosA** 11. Thereafter, the respondents simply issue new advertisement for the said post. 12. This Court in the matter of Vijay Pandey vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, W.P. (S) No. 2800/2017 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.” 13. 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.” 13. In the matter of Sumit Kumar Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, W.P. (S) No. 2446/2015 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.” 14. In the matter of Ishwar Sharan Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, W.A. No. 92/2013 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.” 15. 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.” 15. In the light of above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that in the present petition also the petitioner was selected after due selection process and no report of inquiry has been submitted by respondents to this Court after lapse of one year, and the fact that the petitioner is a deserving candidate to be appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III. 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 Grade-III preferably within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 16. 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. 17. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions to the respondents.