Order : (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.) 1. Heard Dr. Jitendra Kishor Mehta assisted by Mr. Anand Kumar Kujur, Advocates for the respective petitioners. Also heard Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/respondents. 2. Since the common issue is involved in all the writ petitions, as such, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners are seeking indulgence of this Court with a prayer that the respondent authorities be directed to conclude the Direct Recruitment of Teachers "E" & "T" Cadre 2023 for the vacant posts of Divisional Cadre in Surguja and Bastar Division. After appearing in the Teacher Recruitment Examination-2023 conducted by Chhattisgarh Vyawsayik Pariksha Mandal, Raipur (herein called as 'CGVYAPAM) on behalf of Directorate of Public Instructions (Department of School Education), the petitioners who are in merit list are waiting to undergo appointment process in the vacant post of teacher and lecturer 'E' & T' cadre through online counselling. The respondents have not yet notified in public domain that they have stopped or are going to continue the process of appointment through online counselling for the remaining vacant posts of Teachers, but till date, the respondents have not completed the process of recruitment, for which the respondents had published advertisement for the direct recruitment of Teachers and Lecturers "E" & "T" Cadre for the vacant posts of Divisional cadre in Surguja and Bastar Division. 4. In all the writ petitions, almost same reliefs have been claimed by the petitioners. For the sake of brevity, the reliefs sought by the petitioners in WPS No.7701/2024 (Indu Bhagat and other vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) has been taken into consideration which are quoted hereinbelow:- “(i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writs/orders/direction to the respondent authorities to conclude the Direct Recruitment of Teachers "E" & "T" Cadre 2023 for the vacant posts of Divisional Cadre in Surguja and Bastar Division. (iii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writs/orders/ direction to the respondents not to create new vacancy for the post of teachers till the present Teacher Recruitment 2023 is concluded. (iv) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writs/orders/direction to consider the representations preferred by the petitioners. (iii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writs/orders/ direction to the respondents not to create new vacancy for the post of teachers till the present Teacher Recruitment 2023 is concluded. (iv) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writs/orders/direction to consider the representations preferred by the petitioners. (v) That any other relief/order which may be deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.” 5. Brief facts necessary for disposal of all these writ petitions are that the petitioners had appeared in the Teacher Recruitment Examination-2023 which was conducted by CGVYAPAM and they are waited to undergo appointment process in the vacant post of teacher and lecturer 'E' & ' T' cadre through online counselling. The respondents initiated teacher recruitment process under Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (for short, “Rules of 2019”) and on 04.05.2023, the Department of Public Instructions (Department of School Education) published two separate detailed advertisement inviting online application from the eligible candidates for Direct Recruitment of Teachers "E" & "T" Cadre and Lecturer "E" & "T" Cadre for the vacant posts of Divisional cadre in Surguja and Bastar Division, respectively. The number of vacant posts for Teacher E' cadre was 1113 and for the Teacher T' cadre was 4659 a total of 5772 posts of teachers. The total number of vacant posts for Lecturer cadre was 432. The petitioner have filled their online application forms as scheduled through the website of CGVYAPAM. On 10.06.2023, the CGVYAPAM has conducted the Teacher Recruitment Examination-2023 and on 15.06.2023, the CGVYAPAM has released the model answers of the said examination and invited claims or objections on the model answer of Assistant Teacher "E" & "T Cadre Recruitment Examination-2023. 6. Thereafter, on 02.07.2023, the respondents published a combined merit list of the said examination and the respondents issued notification for process of appointment through online counselling Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, Phase IV on the respective dates i.e., 13.07.2023, 08.08.2023, 15.09.2023 and 13.02.2024 on the vacant post of Lecturers for the subjects Mathematics, Physics and Commerce. 7. 6. Thereafter, on 02.07.2023, the respondents published a combined merit list of the said examination and the respondents issued notification for process of appointment through online counselling Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, Phase IV on the respective dates i.e., 13.07.2023, 08.08.2023, 15.09.2023 and 13.02.2024 on the vacant post of Lecturers for the subjects Mathematics, Physics and Commerce. 7. Thereafter, the respondents have further issued notification for process of appointment through online counselling Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, Phase IV, Phase V on the respective dates i.e., 06.09.2023, 12.08.2023, 21.09.2023, 06.02.2024, 05.03.2024 on the vacant post of Teachers, but neither all the vacant posts of Lecturer 'E' & ‘T’ cadre were filled even after four phases of online counselling was completed nor all the vacant posts of Teacher 'E' & ‘T' cadre were filled even after five phases of online counselling was completed. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted representations to the respondents to conduct the process of appointment through online counselling (Phase VI) for the remaining vacant posts of Teacher 'E' & 'T' cadre. The respondents did not seem to continue the further process of appointment through online counselling for the remaining vacant posts advertised against Teachers Recruitment-2023 and as such, the petitioners submitted representations to various authorities of the State Government on different occasions. 8. Further, on 21.08.2024 the petitioners have submitted representations before the Chhattisgarh State commission for Scheduled Tribe, Raipur requesting the Chairman of the Commission to intervene in favour of the petitioners by way of seeking clarification from the respondents regarding the stopped process of appointment through online counselling for the remaining vacant posts of Teachers. The respondents replied to the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Scheduled Tribe, Raipur with reference to its Letter No. 2337, Dated 02.08.2024 Case No. 86/2024 on 13.08.2024 and with reference to its Letter No. 2761 Dated 27.08.2024 Case No. 86/2024 on 30.08.2024, admitting that out of total sanctioned post of 5772, the total number of unfilled vacant posts are 915 for Teacher cadre 'E' & ‘T' and similarly out of total sanctioned post 432, the total number of unfilled vacant posts are 80 for Lecturer cadre 'E' & ‘T'. 9. 9. It is further case of the petitioners that the respondents were aware of the fact the validity of panel/merit list is for only one year, yet they have intentionally delayed the recruitment process without exercising on any policy decision or reasonableness and let the validity expire depriving the selected candidates from getting appointed to the vacant post, which is illegal in the teeth of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the acts committed by the respondent authorities are nonetheless, but culpable exercise of power, as such, the advertisement issued for recruitment of Assistant Teacher dated 04.05.2023 is required to be quashed interalia with a prayer that the petitioners may be considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher for their relevant subjects as they were selected for appointment, however, they could not be appointed due to the inaction on the part of respondent authorities. 10. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners in all the writ petitions would submit that when the petitioners were selected and their documents were verified then the petitioners should have been appointed by the respondent authorities, however, inspite of appointing petitioners on their respective subjects even after their selection, the respondent authorities have issued a fresh advertisement dated 04.05.2023, which is per se illegal and contrary to the order dated 01.05.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and requires to be quashed. It is further argued that the petitioners are waiting to undergo appointment process in the vacant post of teacher and lecturer 'E' & 'T' cadre through online counselling and till date, the respondents have not completed the process of Teacher Recruitment Examination-2023 for which the respondents had published advertisement for the direct recruitment of Teachers and Lecturers "E" & "T" Cadre for the vacant posts of Divisional cadre in Surguja and Bastar Division. It has been contended that name of the petitioners are in the merit list and are eligible candidates to be considered for the selection procedures conducted by the respondents who have duly qualified with open competitive written exams to appear in appointment process through online counselling process. It has been contended that name of the petitioners are in the merit list and are eligible candidates to be considered for the selection procedures conducted by the respondents who have duly qualified with open competitive written exams to appear in appointment process through online counselling process. It has been further contended that the respondents were aware of the fact that the validity of panel/merit list is for only one year yet they have intentionally delayed the recruitment process without exercising on any policy decision or reasonableness and let the validity expire depriving the selected candidates from getting appointed to the vacant post. It has been submitted that sufficient time period has elapsed and till date no significant action has been initiated by the respondents, as such, the writ petitions be allowed and the respondent authorities be directed to call the petitioners for fresh counselling and to pass appropriate orders in respect of their appointment for the post of Assistant Teacher in their respective subjects. 11. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners could not be selected and called for counselling as they could not compete the cut-off marks which have been prescribed for selection to the post of Assistant Teachers in various subjects. Only for the sake of petitioners, who could not get qualified, counselling cannot be done again and again. He further submits that even after 5 th round of counselling, the petitioners could not qualify as they could not succeed in getting cut-off marks as prescribed by the respondent authorities and therefore, they could not be selected. It has been contended that the selection would not give a right to the petitioners to be appointed on the respective posts unless and until they qualify the cut-off marks as prescribed in the counselling. When the posts were lying vacant and the aspirants could not compete the cut-off marks as prescribed by the respondent authorities, the authorities have duly advertised and carry forwarded the same. As such, the petitioners were not able to make out a case for their appointment through counselling, which has been closed and cannot be opened again and again. When the posts were lying vacant and the aspirants could not compete the cut-off marks as prescribed by the respondent authorities, the authorities have duly advertised and carry forwarded the same. As such, the petitioners were not able to make out a case for their appointment through counselling, which has been closed and cannot be opened again and again. It is finally contended that the petitioners are miserably failed to make out a case for reliefs sought by them, as such, all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in threshold. 12. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents appended with all the writ petitions. 13. From perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petitions, it is apparent that the petitioners have applied for the post of Assistant Teacher “E” and “T” cadre in their respective subjects. On the basis of their requisite qualification as well as the marks obtained by them, they were selected for counselling, however, in the counselling, they could not get the cut-off marks as prescribed by the respondent authorities. The cut-off marks were time to time revised, however, instead of that, the petitioners were not able to be accommodated for the appointment of Assistant Teacher “E” and “T” cadre in their respective subjects till 5 th round of counselling. 14. From perusal of the documents as well as the advertisement dated 04.05.2023, it is apparent that when the posts could not be fulfilled and were lying vacant for about more than three years, they were carried forward. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to consider the judgments relied upon by the respective counsels. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1 , wherein it has been held in paras 25, 64, 65.1, 65.2 & 65.6 which read as under:- “25. Candidates participating in a recruitment process have legitimate expectation that the process of selection will be fair and non- arbitrary. The basis of doctrine of legitimate expectation in public law is founded on the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in government dealings with individuals. It recognises that a public authority's promise or past conduct will give rise to a legitimate expectation. The basis of doctrine of legitimate expectation in public law is founded on the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in government dealings with individuals. It recognises that a public authority's promise or past conduct will give rise to a legitimate expectation. This doctrine is premised on the notion that public authorities, while performing their public duties, ought to honour their promises or past practices. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred if it is rooted in law, custom, or established procedure. 64. Thus, in light of the decision in Shankarsan Dash, a candidate placed in the select list gets no indefeasible right to be appointed even If vacancies are available. Similar was the view taken by this Court in Subash Chander Marwaha where against 15 vacancies only top 7 from the select list were appointed. But there is a caveat. The State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate. Therefore, when a challenge is laid to State's action in respect of denying appointment to a selected candidate, the burden is on the State to justify its decision for not making appointment from the select list. 65.1.Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; 65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness; 65.6. Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.” 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Rashid v. Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat and others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 582 , wherein it has been held in paras 13 & 14, which read as under:- “13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Rashid v. Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat and others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 582 , wherein it has been held in paras 13 & 14, which read as under:- “13. The appellants who are aspirants for direct recruitment have no right for appointment merely because at one point of time the vacancies were advertised. The candidates such as the appellants cannot claim any right of appointment merely for the reason that they responded to an advertisement published on 12-9-2013. Even after completion of the selection process, the candidates even on the merit list do not have any vested right to seek appointment only for the reason that their names appear on the merit list. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that a candidate seeking appointment to a civil post cannot be regarded to have acquired an indefeasible right to appointment in such post merely because of the appearance of his name in the merit list. This Court held as under: (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. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha: Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab.’ 14. and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha: Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab.’ 14. Since the selection process has not been completed and keeping in view the mandate of the statutory rules, we find that the appellants have no right to dispute the action of the municipal bodies to fill up the posts either by way of promotion or by deputation as such posts are being filled up in terms of mandate of the Rules. It is always open to the municipal bodies to fill up the vacant posts by way of direct recruitment after the posts by way of promotion and/or deputation quota are not filled up either on the basis of recruitment process already initiated or to be initiated afresh.” 17. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Police and Another v. Umesh Kumar reported in (2020) 10 SCC 448 , wherein vide paras 19, 20, 23, it has been held as under:- “19.The real issue, however, is whether the respondents were entitled to a writ of mandamus. This would depend on whether they have a vested right of appointment. Clearly the answer to this must be in the negative. In Punjab SEB v. Malkiat Singh, this Court held that the mere inclusion of candidates in a selection list does not confer upon them a vested right to appointment. The Court held: (SCC p. 26, para 4) "4.... the High Court committed an error in proceeding on the basis that the respondent had got a vested right for appointment and that could not have been taken away by the subsequent change in the policy. It is settled law that mere inclusion of name of a candidate in the select list does not confer on such candidate any vested right to get an order of appointment. This position is made clear in para 7 of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India 10 which reads: (SCC pp. 50-51) 7. This position is made clear in para 7 of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India 10 which reads: (SCC pp. 50-51) 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. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab 13. (emphasis in original) 20. In the present case, after the name of the respondents appeared in the results declared on 17-7-2015, the process of recruitment was put in abeyance since the results were challenged before the Tribunal. The process of revising the results during the course of the recruitment was necessitated to align it in accordance with law. An Expert Committee was specifically appointed following the institution of proceedings before the Tribunal. The report of the Expert Committee established errors in the answer-key, and thereafter a conscious decision was taken, after evaluating the report, to revise the results on 1-2-2016. In the fresh list which was drawn up, both the respondents have admittedly failed to fulfil the cut-off for the OBC category to which they belong. As the learned ASG submitted before the Court, as many as 228 candidates are ranked above Umesh Kumar on merit while 265 candidates stand above Satyendra Singh. In the fresh list which was drawn up, both the respondents have admittedly failed to fulfil the cut-off for the OBC category to which they belong. As the learned ASG submitted before the Court, as many as 228 candidates are ranked above Umesh Kumar on merit while 265 candidates stand above Satyendra Singh. The submission of Mr Khurshid that these are the only two candidates before this Court would not entitle them to a direction contrary to law since they had no vested right to appointment. 23. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the judgments delivered by the Delhi High Court on 6-12-2018 in Umesh Kumar v. States and on 19-12-2018 in Satyendra Singh v. States do not comport with law. The High Court has been manifestly in error in issuing a mandamus to the appellants to appoint the respondents on the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police. The direction was clearly contrary to law. The respondents have participated in the selection process and upon the declaration of the revised result, it has emerged before the Court that they have failed to obtain marks above the cut-off for the OBC category to which they belong.” 18. Now, reverting back to the present writ petitions, when they are examined in the light of aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is ample clear that even after selection for the post of Assistant Teacher “E” and “T” cadre, the petitioners who had been succeeded in selection process and whose documents were verified, did not confer a vested right to be appointed. Admittedly, the petitioners, who are aspirants for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers “E” and “T” cadre, have failed to secure marks above the cut-off marks for the post of Assistant Teachers “E” and “T” cadre, therefore, it cannot be recorded to have acquired an indefeasible right to be appointed on the said posts merely on the ground that their names appear in the select merit list. The respondent authorities did their best in the process of selection as there were as many as 4 rounds of counselling, however, even in the 5 th round of counselling, the petitioners could not be appointed, as they could not cross the cut-off marks as prescribed the respondent authorities. The respondent authorities did their best in the process of selection as there were as many as 4 rounds of counselling, however, even in the 5 th round of counselling, the petitioners could not be appointed, as they could not cross the cut-off marks as prescribed the respondent authorities. The judgment cited by the petitioners is also relevant to the aspect that the person who gets placed in the select list gets no indefeasible right to be appointed even if the vacancies are available. The rider would be that the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to any selected candidate. However, in the present matters, there is a plausible reason for not appointing the petitioners to the post of Assistant Teacher “E” and “T” cadre as the petitioners could not compete the cut-off marks prescribed by the respondent authorities and in that view of the matter, even if posts are lying vacant, the petitioners cannot claim for appointment only on the basis of their selection as the selection is altogether different thing from appointed. 19. It is admitted position that when the posts could not be fulfilled even after 5 th round of counselling, the respondent authorities were having no way left except to carry forward those vacant posts for new advertisement which cannot be said to be faulted with. The respondent authorities/State has rightly issued an advertisement dated 04.05.2023 for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher “E” and “T” cadre while carrying forward the remaining seats which could not be fulfilled in the earlier round of recruitment process, which cannot be interfered with by this Court. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue regarding exercise of interference under extraordinary jurisdiction has held in the matter of M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Naveen Mathew Philip and another reported in [2023] LiveLaw (SC) 320 , which reads as under:- “18. While doing so, we are conscious of the fact that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are rather wide but are required to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances in matters pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute, more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a borrower, when the legislature has provided for a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal.” 21. Looking into all the aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court do not consider present to be fit cases for interfering with the acts of respondent authorities/State, in extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. Accordingly, the present petitions, being devoid of merits are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. 23. There shall be no order as to cost(s).