JUDGMENT D.K. Trivedi, J. - By means of these writ petitions a writ of mandamus has been prayed for directing the opposite parties to offer appointment to the petitioners at least of Assistant Store Keeper from the date from which juniors to the petitioners have been appointed. It is not disputed that the selection was held for the post of Mechanic by opposite party no. 1 in the pay scale of Rs. 490760 in 1989. It is also not disputed that a select list of 93 persons (general) had been prepared. It is also not disputed that out of these, 56 persons from the top had been appointed on the post of Mechanic but thereafter 21 persons from the bottom had been appointed on the post of Assistant Store Keeper in the pay scale of Rs. 410640. 2. The main grievance of the petitioners in these petitions is that 12 persons who were lower in merit than the petitioners in the select list have been given employment by opposite party No. 1 excluding the petitioners. Their grievance is that opposite party No. 1 had no right to pick and choose in issuing appointment letters. It is not disputed that 16 persons (including 11 from general category) have been appointed by the opposite party ignoring the claim of the petitioners who were found higher in merit and their names found place in the higher place in the select list. Opposite party No. 1 in fact committed this mistake and, therefore, in my opinion the petitioners of these writ petitions are also entitled to get appointment at least on the post of Assistant Store Keeper. The main grievance of the opposite parties is that 16 persons, who have been appointed from the bottom of the list, have not been impleaded as opposite parties in these writ petitions and secondly it is said that the petitioners have applied for the post of Mechanic for which no discrimination has been made. In my opinion on this ground the claim of the petitioners cannot be refused which was found to be genuine. In my opinion on this ground the claim of the petitioners cannot be refused which was found to be genuine. Opposite party No. 1 at the time of issuing appointment letters to the 16 persons who were lower in merit than the petitioners owed a duty to first make an enquiry from the petitioners as to whether they are ready to accept the post of Assistant Store .Keeper or not and if they refused to accept the post of Assistant Store Keeper then he could appoint other persons as Assistant StoreKeeper, but he had no right to appoint the persons lower in merit than the petitioners ignoring the claim of those whose names found place on higher position than the said appointed persons. As the fact is not disputed that 16 persons (including II from general category) have been appointed from the bottom ignoring the claim of the petitioners and even persons belonging to Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes have been appointed from the bottom and not in accordance with the select, list, therefore, in view of these infirmities I direct opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 to appoint ail the petitioners also on the post of Assistant Store Keeper from the date their juniors have been appointed in their respective categories. However, it will be open to the opposite parties to appoint am of the petitioners or other persons as Mechanic in accordance with select list and this order will not debar the opposite parties from making such appointments. 3. In view of the above directions the writ petitions mentioned above are disposed of finally. Parties will bear their own costs. (Order Accordingly)