ORDER : N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. N.D. Songara for the petitioner and learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta assisted by learned advocate Mr. Hemang Shah for the respondent-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. 2. The petitioner has prayed as under. to direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the post of clerk as per the order dated 29.03.2011 passed in Special Civil Application No. 16383 of 2010 and allied matter as the case of the petitioner is covered under the policy of the respondent, by which the respondent has considered the case of the similarly situated candidates till 2003. 2.1. It may be stated at the outset that the present petition formed part of batch of petitions being Special Civil Application NO. 8810 of 2017 and allied petitions, which were disposed of by CAV order dated 19th October, 2019. The captioned petition was left out and was separately reserved for orders. 3. Noticing the basic facts, the father of the petitioner was Conductor with the respondent-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation who died on 13th March, 2007 while in service. On 29th October, 2007, petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment as Clerk. It appears that there was a settlement between the Union and the Corporation. Petitioner made a representation but nothing yielded. Respondent-Corporation addressed a communication dated 14th October, 2015 rejecting the representation of the petitioner stating that the petitioner had given undertaking that he would not claim the post of Clerk in future. 3.1. It appears that petitioner and several other similarly situated candidates filed Special Civil Application No. 16383 of 2010 in which this Court required the Corporation to consider the applications of the petitioners for appointing them on the post lower than that of Clerk. The petitioners were required to give undertaking to the respondent-Corporation to the effect that they were ready and willing to be considered for appointment on compassionate appointing basis on the post lower than the Clerk within three weeks. In other words, petitioners were to be given appointment in Class-IV post instead of appointment as Clerks in Class-III. 3.2. It was stated by the petitioner that despite the above order and the undertaking subsequently given by the petitioners, since the Corporation failed to offer appointment, proceedings in the nature of Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 3366 of 2011 were filed for directions. 3.2. It was stated by the petitioner that despite the above order and the undertaking subsequently given by the petitioners, since the Corporation failed to offer appointment, proceedings in the nature of Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 3366 of 2011 were filed for directions. This Court passed order on 10th November, 2012 whereby the competent authority of the Corporation was directed to consider and take decision upon the applications of the petitioner within three months. The petitioner thereafter came to be appointed as Peon in Class-IV as per the order dated 29th March, 2011 passed in Special Civil Application No. 16383 of 2010. 3.3. The petitioners have now prayed that they are entitled to be appointed on the post of Clerk as the vacancies are available and that the Corporation is likely to fill up the same. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied on order of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 16383 of 2010 wherein, according to learned advocate for the petitioners, liberty was reserved to the petitioner to be appointed on the subsequent stage on the post of Clerk when the vacancies arise. It was submitted that the petitioners possesses the qualification of Clerks and that they had originally applied for the post of Clerk on compassionate ground. 4.1. It was submitted that there were 506 posts of Clerks were vacant and the petitioner was liable to be posted as Clerks on compassionate basis. Learned advocate for the petitioners highlighted that by communication dated 15th March, 2013 and others, respondent-Corporation was requested to consider the case of the petitioners for giving appointment to the petitioner on the post of Clerks as per the direction of this Court in the aforementioned petition. 4.2. It was further sought to be highlighted on behalf of the petitioner that they filed another Special Civil Application No. 15521 of 2013 before this Court since the respondent-Corporation did not pay heed to the request of the petitioner. The said petition was disposed of by order dated 03rd December, 2013 requiring the Corporation to consider the applications of the petitioners in accordance with law and the applicable rules and policy. Learned advocate further submitted about the shortage of Clerks in the Corporation and the petitioner's case was required to be considered for appointment as Clerk. The said petition was disposed of by order dated 03rd December, 2013 requiring the Corporation to consider the applications of the petitioners in accordance with law and the applicable rules and policy. Learned advocate further submitted about the shortage of Clerks in the Corporation and the petitioner's case was required to be considered for appointment as Clerk. It was further stated that still another Special Civil Application No. 18109 of 2015 was filed with the same purpose, which was disposed of on 12th April, 2016 with the observations that, "This writ application is disposed of with an understanding that as and when the advertisement is issued by the Corporation for filling up the posts in the Class-III, it shall be open for the petitioners to apply, and if they apply, they will be considered in accordance with the rules and the regulations". 4.3. The petition was contested and the prayers were opposed by the Corporation by filing affidavit- in-reply. It was submitted that the petitioners have voluntarily accepted Class-IV post and there was no further right to be appointed straightway to Class-III post. With regard to the contention of the petitioners with reference to order in Special Civil Application No. 16383 of 2010, it was stated that the order did not provide for granting appointment on the post of Clerk to the petitioners but what was granted was liberty to make fresh application when the post were to be advertised. 4.4. Following was uncontrovertedly stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in Special Civil Application No. 8810 of 2017. ".... An affidavit-in-reply was filed by the Corporation in the said Special Civil Application stating that there are not vacant posts of Clerk available. During the course of hearing of the said Special Civil Application, this Hon'ble Court inquired with the Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners therein whether his clients were ready and willing to accept appointment on any post lower than that of Clerk and whether they are ready and willing to give an undertaking to the Corporation in reference thereto. This Hon'ble Court had also informed the Advocate that such concession would not preclude the petitioners from making fresh applications for the post of Clerk as and when such posts are advertised in the future. This Hon'ble Court had also informed the Advocate that such concession would not preclude the petitioners from making fresh applications for the post of Clerk as and when such posts are advertised in the future. The advocate appearing on behalf of the Corporation, in the said Special Civil Application's on instructions, had informed this Hon'ble Court that the case of the petitioners for grant of appointment on compassionate ground on post lower than that of Clerk would be made subject to availability of such vacant posts." 5. Since the case of the petitioners for getting appointment as Clerks is based on the order dated 29th March, 2011 passed in Manubhai Bhanbhai Vicchiya v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation being Special Civil Application No. 16383 of 2010 and allied petitions, the relevant part of the order may be extracted, "3. Today, when the matters are taken up for hearing Mr. Mukesh H. Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioners in all the petitions states, upon instructions, that the petitioners are ready and willing to be considered for appointment on any post lower than that of Clerk and for this purpose the petitioners are willing to give undertakings to the respondent-Corporation. Therefore, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners regarding their appointment on the post of Clerk in future, the respondent-Corporation may consider the petitioners for appointment on a lower post. This concession may not preclude the petitioners from making fresh applications for the post of Clerk, as and when such posts are advertised in the future. The learned advocate for the petitioners further states that if the respondent-Corporation is willing to consider the petitioners for posts lower than that of Clerk, the petitions may be disposed of, with appropriate directions. 4. Mr. Shalin N. Mehta, learned advocate for Mr. Hemang M. Shah, learned advocate for the respondents has submitted that the respondents will consider the case of the petitioners for grant of appointments on compassionate grounds at posts lower than that of Clerk, subject to availability of the posts. Further, the applications made by the petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment shall be considered for the lower post, in accordance with law." 5.1. The Court thereafter passed the following operative order. "5. Further, the applications made by the petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment shall be considered for the lower post, in accordance with law." 5.1. The Court thereafter passed the following operative order. "5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and in view of the above statements made by them, the following order is passed: The petitioners shall give undertakings to the respondent-Corporation to the effect that they are ready and willing to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, on posts lower than that of Clerk within 3 weeks from today. The respondent-Corporation may consider the applications made by the petitioners for grant of appointment on posts lower than that of Clerk, in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible. The petitioners are at liberty to make fresh applications for the post of Clerk, as and when vacancies in the cadre of Clerk arise and the posts are advertised." (emphasis supplied) 5.2. Thus, from the bare reading of the aforesaid directions of this Court, it can be seen that it was provided that the respondent-Corporation may consider the applications made by the petitioners for grant of appointment on the post of lower than that of Clerk expeditiously. It is further stated that the petitioners are at liberty to make fresh applications for the post of Clerks as and when vacancies in the cadre of Clerk arise and the posts are advertised. 5.3. Therefore, it clearly transpires that during the adjudication of the said petition, petitioner accepted Class-IV post lower than that of Clerk. They also gave undertaking that they willingly accepted the post of Peon in Class-IV. A specimen undertaking dated 14th September, 2012 given by one of the persons was made available to the Court for perusal. The petitioner has given similar undertaking stating that if they were to be given appointment as Peon in Class-IV as per the directions of the Court in the Special Civil Application, the same was acceptable to them and that they would not lodge any claim in future for appointment in higher cadre based on the qualification. The undertakings were given voluntarily and the appointment in the Class-IV post was willingly accepted by the petitioners. 5.4. The petitioner had filed two further petitions being Special Civil Application No. 15518 of 2013 and other petitions. The undertakings were given voluntarily and the appointment in the Class-IV post was willingly accepted by the petitioners. 5.4. The petitioner had filed two further petitions being Special Civil Application No. 15518 of 2013 and other petitions. These petitions were also disposed of by observing that petitioners may make applications to be considered in accordance with law and applicable rules and policy. It is not clear whether the directions passed in Special Civil Application No. 16383 of 2010 were brought to the notice of the Court. In any view, order dated 03rd December, 2013 passed in Special Civil Application No. 15518 of 2013 was based on the same lines. Other petition being Special Civil Application No. 18109 of 2015 was also disposed of by observing that the petition was disposed of with an understanding that as and when the advertisement was issued by the Corporation for filling up the posts in the Class- III, it shall be open for the petitioners to apply, and if they apply, they would be considered in accordance with the rules and the regulations. 6. Thus, the situation emerges from the above operative facts that at the time of filing of Special Civil Application No. 16383 of 2010, the petitioners had submitted through their advocate that they would accept the appointment in Class-IV post. From paragraph 3 of order dated 29th March, 2011 extracted as above it is abundantly clear that the petitioners themselves requested for appointment to a post lower than the Clerk. The petitioners gave undertaking that they would not claim in future any higher post. The Court gave liberty to petitioners only to make application for the post of Clerks as and when the vacancies arise and the posts are advertise. 6.1. What was reserved for the petitioners was right to apply to compete with others when the advertisement is issued upon occurrence of vacancies. There was no entitlement ever extended to the petitioner for getting the appointments straightway to the post of Clerks. The petitioner has already been working on Class-IV post as Peon having been accepted the same willingly. In the subsequent petitions also, as mentioned above, what was observed by the Court was only for consideration for appointment in accordance with the Rules and the policy. 6.2. The petitioner has already been working on Class-IV post as Peon having been accepted the same willingly. In the subsequent petitions also, as mentioned above, what was observed by the Court was only for consideration for appointment in accordance with the Rules and the policy. 6.2. No other right was vested or could be enforced for the petitioner to be appointed to the post of Clerk in the Class-III category. The entire case, basis thereof and the prayers made, are of misconceived. The writ jurisdiction could not be utilised by the petitioner to resile from voluntary act of acceptance of appointment which they had have willingly done. 7. The petition is meritless. No relief could be booked for the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. Rule and the notice, as the case may be, discharged. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION In view of disposal of the main Special Civil Application, no orders are required to be passed in the Civil Application and accordingly stand disposed of.