ORDER : 1. All these petitions agitate the same issue and hence are being disposed of by this common order. 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.24143/2018 is taken as the lead case. 3. The respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) for various departments across the State of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Service Rules, 1999 (hereafter ‘Rules of 1999’). The petitioners applied in pursuance thereto, were admitted to the written examination, passed it and were placed in the select list for appointment to the post LDC. 4. The case of the petitioners is that for allotment of districts for posting as LDC they were entitled to the benefit of their merit cum preference in terms of Section 28(4) of the Rules of 1999. However the respondents arbitrarily failed to give the petitioners’ the benefit of their respective merit cum preference in the allotment of districts and the petitioners entitled to allotment of their choice districts under Section 28(iv) of the Rules of 1999 have been arbitrarily and illegally allotted districts far away from their choice districts while less meritorious candidates have been allotted their home district or district of choice. 5. Notices being served on the respondent- State, Mr. M.S. Singhvi Advocate General appears. He referred to a letter dated 15.1.2019 addressed to him by the Joint Secretary Administration reforms (which passed over, is taken on record) and submitted that a standing scrutiny committee (hereafter ‘Committee’) has been constituted by the Administrative Reforms and Co-ordination Department for addressing the grievances on the issue at hand and the petitioners hence should submit if not yet submitted, their respective representations thereto on the notified website, reiterating their preferences under Section 28(iv) of the Rules of 1999 and such preferences will be considered with reference to their merit and availability of vacant posts. He submitted that the committee is an ongoing one and all representations by aggrieved LDCs placed on the website of the Administrative Reforms and Coordination Department are constantly under consideration. The next meeting of the committee, is to be held on 18.01.2019. All pending representations and those now received will be addressed within a period of four weeks from today/receipt. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. The issue in these petitions is not so much of interpretation of law but of governance and administration. The next meeting of the committee, is to be held on 18.01.2019. All pending representations and those now received will be addressed within a period of four weeks from today/receipt. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. The issue in these petitions is not so much of interpretation of law but of governance and administration. It has not been disputed that Section 28(iv) of the Rules of 1999 mandates that allotment of districts to LDCs recruited shall be on the basis of merit cum preference. Rule 28 (iv) of the Rules of 1999 reads as under:- (iv) The Commission shall send these lists to Administrative Reforms Department of the Government Secretariat who shall notify it for the information of all concerned Appointing Authorities. From out of these lists, Administrative Reforms Department shall allot candidates to various Appointing Authorities on the basis of the position obtained by them in the merit list prepared under sub-rule (1) above and in accordance with the rosters for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes maintained by the Department. While doing so, the Administrative Reforms Department will try to allot to the candidates the District opted by him/her in the application form, in order of merit as far as possible. In case of non-availability of vacancies in the District opted by a candidate he/she may be allotted any other District of the State. The Appointing Authority shall satisfy himself/herself by making such enquiry as may be considered necessary that such candidates are otherwise suitable in all respect for appointment to the posts. There can thus be no conceivable reason for an error in the allotment of districts for posting of LDCs on the basis of their respective merit cum preference subject no doubt to availability of vacancies— except in cases of gross dereliction of duty, palpable negligence or mala fides—all unacceptable situations. On the statement of Mr. There can thus be no conceivable reason for an error in the allotment of districts for posting of LDCs on the basis of their respective merit cum preference subject no doubt to availability of vacancies— except in cases of gross dereliction of duty, palpable negligence or mala fides—all unacceptable situations. On the statement of Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General, I am satisfied that the exercise for allotment of districts, under Section 28(iv) of the Rules of 1999 to LDCs recruited pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.07.2013 will now be fairly done while considering their representation/s. I would in the circumstances dispose of these petitions as under:- (1) that the representations of the petitioners recruited as LDCs pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.07.2013 filed on the website of the Administrative Reforms and Co-ordination Department pertaining to their grievance regarding noncompliance with Section 28(iv) of the Rules of 1999 and not taking their merit cum preference for allotment of districts sought will be disposed of within a period of four weeks from the receipt of each of the representations. (2) where the representation/s is being rejected, a reasoned and speaking order there for will be passed. A copy of this order be placed in each connected petition.