Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1017 (GUJ)

Vipul Rajendrakumar Dantani v. State Of Gujarat

2022-09-06

BIREN VAISHNAV

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. All these petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners pursuant to an advertisement dated 15.02.2012 issued by the High Court of Gujarat (on its administrative side) namely; advertisement No.RC/1434 of 2011 calling for applications from candidates on various posts including that of the post of Assistant (Junior Clerk). 2. Since all these petitions have common set of facts, facts of Special Civil Application No.15543 of 2016 which was argued as the lead matter are taken into consideration. 3. The prayers of the petitioner read as under: "(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to condone the delay, if any, in filing this petition before this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice. (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit the aforementioned petition. (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order and/or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring action on the part of the respondents/an order/communication dated 12.04.2016 at Annexure-R to the petition as unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, suffering from non-application of mind, barred by promissory estoppel, ipsi dixit and non-speaking qua the petitioner and further be pleased to quash and set aside the same qua the petitioner and further be pleased to direct the respondents to give posting to the petitioner either at the District of his choice or at the District nearby thereto as ample number of vacancies are available in all the preference districts even as on date." 4. It is the case of the petitioners that an advertisement on 15.02.2012 calling for applications from candidates for various posts of Assistant (Junior Clerk) was issued. Total number of 2084 posts had to be filled in amongst which 1037 posts were of General Category, 111 posts were of Reserved Category for SC, 312 of ST, 532 posts for SEBC and 92 posts for Physically Challenged. The petitioner applied for the post. After undertaking a written/practical examination and overall interview, it is the case of the petitioner that he secured 102.12 marks out of 200. 5. Ms. Roopal Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Clause 9(5) of the advertisement provided that the candidates whose names are included in the select list shall be recommended for appointment in order of merit having due regard to the preference for the districts given by the candidates. 5. Ms. Roopal Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Clause 9(5) of the advertisement provided that the candidates whose names are included in the select list shall be recommended for appointment in order of merit having due regard to the preference for the districts given by the candidates. She would therefore submit that in the application form filled in for the purposes of such recruitment, the petitioner had given 3 choices as district preferences for posting. The 1st choice was Ahmedabad, 2nd Gandhinagar and 3rd Kheda. 5.1. Ms. Patel would submit that if the list of selected candidates is seen which was prepared on 10.05.2013 the petitioner was offered posting at Valsad on 14.10.2013, and the petitioner accordingly resumed his duties on 16.10.2013. It is the case of the petitioner that since his other choices in the districts were of Kheda and Gandhinagar respectively, reading the select list would indicate that two candidates namely; one Dodiya Vikramsinh Mangalsinh and Chauhan Vimal Rameshbhai had secured lessor marks i.e. 102.11 in the select list and they have not given the choice at Kheda despite which such candidates were accommodated at Kheda whereas the petitioner was overlooked for such appointment at a district of his preference. 5.2. Ms. Patel would submit that even Clause 6 of the advertisement of the main Clause 9 indicated that if the posting is not given at the district of the choice, it should be given at the nearby district. She would therefore submit that looking to other district namely; Anand, people of lower merit were appointed. So also was the case for Vadodara district. According to Ms. Patel, this act of the respondents on the administrative side was discriminatory and therefore the action of the respondents in not giving such appointment was bad. Ms. Patel would extensively read out the order passed by this Court in these petitions on 09.10.2017 and submit that it was an admitted position by the High Court on the administrative side that it being the first Centralized Recruitment Process, some inadvertent mistakes had crept in and admittedly therefore the injustice caused to the petitioners must be rectified. Ms. Patel would also rely on orders passed by this Court in these petitions on 25.04.2018, 10.05.2018 and on 11.02.2019. 5.2. Ms. Ms. Patel would also rely on orders passed by this Court in these petitions on 25.04.2018, 10.05.2018 and on 11.02.2019. 5.2. Ms. Patel would submit that the impugned order dated 12.05.2016 is without any reason, inasmuch as, the request for inter district transfer has been rejected. She would invite the attention of the Court that in the earlier round of litigation wherein the petitioner had approached this Court by filing SCAs, this Court on 01.03.2016 directed the High Court on the administrative side to consider the representations made by the petitioners. Despite clear representations made on 21.10.2015 and 09.03.2016, such representations have been rejected, despite the petitioner being higher in merit and entitled to the district preference of his choice, namely; Ahmedabad and 3rd choice Kheda. 5.3. Ms. Patel would further submit that as a result of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 10.5.2018 based on a report of the Committee, a chart was prepared showing the details of the petitioners and it was an admitted fact that in case of the present petitioners, the opinion was that they may be accommodated at the respective preferences as given in the chart. That even vacancies were available was admitted in the order dated 11.02.2019 despite which the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for posting him at the choice of his district. 6. Ms. Trusha Patel, learned counsel appearing for the High Court on its administrative side so also the Valsad District Court would make the following submissions: 6.1. Ms. Trusha Patel would submit that the petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. She would submit that the petitioner was given a posting on 14.10.2013. The appointment and posting was accepted without any protest. No representation was made for about 2 years and only after an order was passed on 01.03.2016, did the petitioner make a representation on 09.03.2016. Reading the order Ms. Trusha Patel would submit that the orders specifically stated that the petitioner may be permitted to make an appropriate representation on the ground of family circumstances. 6.2. Ms. Trusha Patel would further submit that reading the instruction 9(6) of the advertisement indicates that it was only "as far as possible" that the preferences of the candidates be considered. Trusha Patel would submit that the orders specifically stated that the petitioner may be permitted to make an appropriate representation on the ground of family circumstances. 6.2. Ms. Trusha Patel would further submit that reading the instruction 9(6) of the advertisement indicates that it was only "as far as possible" that the preferences of the candidates be considered. Mere success in the competitive examination would not confer any right of appointment and, therefore that itself would not give the petitioner a right for accommodating at the district of his preference. 6.3. Ms. Trusha Patel would submit that as per the advertisement three choice of stations of initial postings were required to be given by the candidates. The question was to be determined on the availability of vacancies against the relevant category. She would submit that the last Clause of the advertisement stated that the decision of the High Court in respect of the matters pertaining to recruitment would be final. 6.4. Adverting to the certificate produced alongwith the representation in the year 2016, Ms. Trusha Patel would submit that the certificate dated 29.10.2012 highlighting personal difficulties on account of the petitioner's posting at Valsad indicated that his father was mentally ill. The certificate was of the period from 26.10.2012 to 10.11.2012 which is produced 4 years thereafter. Depression is not a disorder which would compel the petitioner to reside at Ahmedabad. 6.5. Ms. Trusha Patel would further submit that the Centralized Recruitment Process for the recruitment had taken place which resulted in some mistakes. Representations were made by 31+20 candidates pursuant to which a report was furnished by a committee on 11.04.2014. Considering the case of the representationists, the Committee opined that only 602 candidates that is 28.89% had been given postings otherwise than their preference and looking to the magnitude of the exercise which was undertaken some mistakes did crop in, inasmuch as majority of the candidates had given preferences for major cities which resulted into paucity of filling in vacancies of South Gujarat and Saurashtra. The committee therefore opined that it was not possible to consider the request looking to the number of candidates. However, since there was a Scheme in place for inter district transfers taking into consideration the special circumstances as a one time exercise, the request was considered. The report was accepted by the full Court on 01.07.2014. 6.6. Ms. The committee therefore opined that it was not possible to consider the request looking to the number of candidates. However, since there was a Scheme in place for inter district transfers taking into consideration the special circumstances as a one time exercise, the request was considered. The report was accepted by the full Court on 01.07.2014. 6.6. Ms. Trusha Patel would submit that it is thereafter that the petitioners made these representations for the change of posting which were not entertained. She would submit that it is an admitted position by the petitioner himself that he was not entitled to the initial posting at Ahmedabad as he was not in the merit at the Ahmedabad district. Despite this, the present petition has been filed. The representations were considered and since the merit of the petitioner was lower than the earlier of the representationists of the first tranche and the second tranche, on the administrative side looking to the fact that such a long period has now lapsed, disturbing the position would have a cascading effect as a result of which the representation was rejected. 6.7. Considering the report dated 11.04.2014 was placed before the committee of 23.08.2016 and the representation was considered and that it was considered not to be falling in exceptional circumstances and was rejected. Ms. Trusha Patel would submit that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 11.02.2019, an additional affidavit is placed on record which too reiterating the earlier reports, found that after the report was published on 04.05.2018, wherein, the Registry considered 144 representations of the second tranche and that of the petitioners, it was not possible for the High Court on the administrative side to accommodate these candidates and the representation was rejected. In support of her submissions, she would rely on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Bharwani Jitendrabhai v. State of Gujarat reported in 2016 (LYC) 1441 to submit that a candidate who is selected does not have a right to be appointed. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and also considering the submissions of counsel of Mr. Dwijen Joshi appearing in the other petitions who adopted the submissions of Ms. Roopal Patel learned counsel for the petitioners, the following facts deserve to be noted. 7.1. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and also considering the submissions of counsel of Mr. Dwijen Joshi appearing in the other petitions who adopted the submissions of Ms. Roopal Patel learned counsel for the petitioners, the following facts deserve to be noted. 7.1. The advertisement for the purposes of the recruitment to the post of Assistants (Junior Clerks) was given on 15.10.2012. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner opted for district preferences for posting at Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar and the 3rd choice Kheda. He accepted the posting at Valsad on 14.10.2013. Having served for over more than three years at Valsad where he resumed his duties on 16.11.2013 it was not possible for the administrative side to consider his representation. 7.2. It is very clear that having resumed on 16.11.2013 for over two years, the petitioner did not make any representation for the grievance that he ought to have been posted at a district of his choice, rather than being posted at Valsad. It would be relevant to reproduce Sub Clauses 5 and 6 (translated version) of Clause 9 of the advertisement which read as under: "(e) The candidates whose names are included in the select list so prepared shall be recommended for appointment in order of merit having due regard to the preference for the districts given by the candidates. (f) The District wise list of candidates recommended for appointment shall be forwarded to the Principal Judicial Officer of the concerned District/Court, as per available vacancies. Such list shall be prepared as far as possible on the basis of merits of the candidates and preferences for districts indicated by them. If on the basis of merit position of a candidate or for any other reasons, it is not possible to recommend him in any of the districts of his choice, he may be recommended for appointment, in any other district. * If candidate's position is down below in the Merit List, and places of other districts of his/her choice have been filled up from amongst the candidates, who are higher, in the Merit List, in that case his/her name may be district nearer to districts of his/her choice. * If candidate's position is down below in the Merit List, and places of other districts of his/her choice have been filled up from amongst the candidates, who are higher, in the Merit List, in that case his/her name may be district nearer to districts of his/her choice. * Nonetheless, irrespective of the option(s), for posting given, the Wait Listed, Selected Candidate, shall have no indefeasible right of posting qua the District of his/her choice and the High Court of Gujarat reserves the right for posting any candidate in any district/establishment as also that of transfer of posting." 7.3. Reading this would indicate that the candidates whose names are included in the select list shall be recommended for appointment in order of merit having due regard to the preference of the districts given by them. Clause 6 indicates that the Principal Judicial Officer of the concerned district to whom the recommendations are forwarded and the district wise list shall be prepared as far as possible on the basis of merit list. If it is not possible to recommend the district of the choice, he may be recommended for appointment in any other district. It is an admitted position as far as the petitioner is concerned, who now asserts the right of being appointed at Ahmedabad as admitted by him in the petition that "the petitioner says that, he had given preference of district, firstly to Ahmedabad. The petitioner says that, so far as Ahmedabad district is concerned, the last candidate belonging to SEBC category had secured 103.74 marks and the petitioner has obtained total 102.12 marks and hence, the petitioner cannot press for the choice of Ahmedabad district, at present." Admittedly therefore, even as per the petitioner, he is not within the merit to press his claim for the district of Ahmedabad. 7.4 It was only in the year 2015 i.e. on 21.10.2015 did he make a representation to the administrative side in the High Court. He then filed a petition namely; SCA No.18319 of 2015 and allied matter, wherein the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court which reads as under: "Without opining anything on merit, the petitioner is permitted to make fresh representation to the respondent no.2. It will be open for the petitioner to highlight his family circumstances in the representation. He then filed a petition namely; SCA No.18319 of 2015 and allied matter, wherein the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court which reads as under: "Without opining anything on merit, the petitioner is permitted to make fresh representation to the respondent no.2. It will be open for the petitioner to highlight his family circumstances in the representation. Such circumstances may be taken into consideration while taking appropriate decision as regards the inter-district transfer. It is expected that appropriate decision shall be taken on the representation at the earliest, preferably within a period of one month from today. Outcome of the decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. This Court has not expressed any opinion on merit. Any adverse decision may entitle the petitioner to move an appropriate forum as per the legal advice. Direct service is permitted." Reading the order would indicate that the petitioner requested the Court that his representation be considered highlighting his family circumstances, which shall be taken into consideration while taking a decision. 8. It appears that as is evident from reading the affidavit in reply filed by the High Court on its administrative side that looking to the magnitude of the elaborate exercise which the 1st recruitment process had undergone which extended upto three months involving 2084 candidates, a total of 1482 candidates that is 71.11% of the candidates could be accommodated as per the first or the second or the third choice. 602 candidates that is 28.89% could be given postings otherwise than their preference. What was found is that majority of the candidates had given preference for posting in major cities which culminated into the paucity of candidates for being posted in the districts in South Gujarat and Saurashtra. It is in light of this assertion on the administrative side of the High Court that the order passed in the first instance on 09.10.2017 which needs to be appreciated reads as under: "1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Perused the record. 2. It is in light of this assertion on the administrative side of the High Court that the order passed in the first instance on 09.10.2017 which needs to be appreciated reads as under: "1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Perused the record. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances and more particularly affidavit-in-reply by the respondents; wherein respondents have come forward with a submission concerning the fact which is disclosed by them in paragraph 7(B) which is reproduced hereunder and thereupon when it is submitted in paragraph 7(I) that assuming for the sake of submission that there was an inadvertent mistake in not placing the petitioner in the district of his choice, ipso facto it is not sufficient to grant the relief to the petitioner; in the first instance, there is admission by the respondent that there is mistake and therefore prima facie it is arbitrariness and discrimination pursuant to clause Paragraph 9 of the advertisement. "7(B) In 1st centralized recruitment process, some inadvertent mistakes were crept in while giving posting 31+20 representations were made to this Hon'ble Court on Administrative side and hence a committee of two Hon'ble Judges of this Hon'ble Court was constituted to examine the representations. The relevant portions of the report dated 11/04/2014 of the Committee comprising the Honorable Judges, while considering the cases of 31+20 Representationists (seeking modifications to their initial orders of Posting in 1st centralized Recruitment process), is reproduced herein below: "It can be noticed from the office submissions of the recruitment cell, and as is culled out from those submissions that, the exercise of giving postings itself, was an elaborate exercise, extending upto three months, undertaken under the direct supervision and control of the Registrar (Recruitment); that, at an hindstage, out of a total of 2084, a total of 1482 candidates i.e. 71.11% percentage of Candidates have been accommodated, as per the 1st or 2nd or 3rd preference and out of the rest of 602 Candidates, i.e. 28.89% have only been given Postings otherwise than their preference. However, this being the First centralized Recruitment Process, and as the entire exercise was very complex, as also owing to the relative magnitude, the Registrar (Recruitment), has submitted that some inadvertent mistakes had been committed, in giving the Postings. However, this being the First centralized Recruitment Process, and as the entire exercise was very complex, as also owing to the relative magnitude, the Registrar (Recruitment), has submitted that some inadvertent mistakes had been committed, in giving the Postings. It is noted that a majority of the candidates had given preference for postings in the major cities of Gujarat, which culminated into paucity of candidates, for being posted in the districts in South Gujarat and Saurashtra regions.... We are further aware of the fact that, conceding to a single request, at this point in time, would have serious repercussions, in the various establishments, encompassing numerous candidates, in each of the categories, posted in the various Districts in the state...." While concluding the said Report, the Honorable Committee made the following recommendations: "(a) In the scenario, this committee is of the considered view that it is not desirable to accede to the requests of the representationists, in the larger interest of the administration, at this stage, as these consequential displacement of candidates, would be too complex and cumbersome for the system to sustain, due to the nature of the cascading effects of such a course of action, being undertaken. (b) This Committee is aware of the fact that, this high Court, already has a 'Scheme', with respect to the employees seeking Transfer/Inter District Transfer, after three years, at one location, in the Subordinate Courts. Taking into consideration, the special circumstances, under which the Representationists are posted away from their native districts, as a 'One time exercise', such Selectee Representationists, after completion of their respective probation periods, may, either be permitted a 'One way Transfer' or an 'Inter- District Transfer'." The said Report containing the aforesaid observations alongwith the recommendations made therein, was placed before the Full Court (Chamber) meeting held on 01.07.2014, whereupon, the said Report was accepted. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid Decision, 31+03 Representationists requesting for modifications in their initial Postings, were forwarded to the Administrative Department 'B' Branch, for taking further necessary action, as has been ordered vide the aforesaid FullCourt (Chamber) Meeting Decision." 3. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid Decision, 31+03 Representationists requesting for modifications in their initial Postings, were forwarded to the Administrative Department 'B' Branch, for taking further necessary action, as has been ordered vide the aforesaid FullCourt (Chamber) Meeting Decision." 3. Though, there may not be an absolute right in favour of the petitioner to confirm their service in particular district as referred in paragraph 7(B), paragraph 7(I) reads as under: "(I) Without prejudice to what is stated herein above, it is submitted that assuming for the sake of submission there was an inadvertent mistake in notplacing the petitioner in the district of his choice, the same, ipso facto is not sufficient to grant the relief to the petitioner. He cannot claim such reliefs as a matter of right. Even if some employees were by mistake placed in the districts of their choice, the same cannot be made basis for granting the relief claimed for by the petitioner, when the petitioner is not entitled to the same. Equality cannot be claimed in case of mistake/irregularity." 4. It is undisputed fact that due to mistakes committed by respondent No.2 some of the candidates are accommodated in particular district. On noticing such mistake, there is no reason for respondent No.2 not to follow the same practice for present set of petitioners who are denied the similar treatment. In view of such fact, when same treatment is refused to similarly situated petitioners and, thereby, when without assigning any reason, reasonable place is not offered to present petitioners even though they are meritorious, such matters certainly require consideration and needs to be expedited. Hence, Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent - State. 5. However, at this stage, when matters are dragged for almost a year and when interim relief as prayed for cannot be granted, it is made clear that matters certainly require to be expedited and, therefore, it is required to be listed for final hearing at the earliest. Hence, matters be listed for final hearing on 6.11.2017. 6. Direct Service is permitted upon rest of the respondent/s." 9. No leverage can be claimed by the petitioner on the basis of the order so passed. Hence, matters be listed for final hearing on 6.11.2017. 6. Direct Service is permitted upon rest of the respondent/s." 9. No leverage can be claimed by the petitioner on the basis of the order so passed. What was observed in the report of the Committee which met on 11.04.2014 where representations were made by 31+3 candidates for modification of postings that it was not desirable to accede to the request in the larger interest of the administration as this consequential displacement of candidates would result in a cumbersome system and also cause cascading effects of exercise being undertaken. It was therefore recommended by the committee that since there is already a Scheme with respect to the employees seeking transfer/inter district transfer after three years, taking into consideration the special circumstances under which the representationists are posted away from their native districts as a "one time exercise" such representatives were given the benefit of one way transfer. The report was accepted by the Chamber Meeting on 01.07.2014. 10. It is only after this that the petitioners and the candidates made representations for a change of their initial posting after two years on 21.10.2015. What was found by the Committee in its Report dated 28.03.2016 that the merit of the petitioner was lower than the earlier set of 31+3 representationists of the first and the second tranche. The order dated 09.10.2016 does not refer to the subsequent development which was considered by the Committee on 28.03.2016 as referred to in paragraphs No.(c) to (g) of the further affidavit and that read as under: "c. Thereafter, the petitioner and other 15+24 candidates made representations. The petitioner was one of those 24 applicants who had made representation for change of his initial posting. The representation was made by the petitioner on 21.10.2015. Since the said request of the petitioner was not entertained, he had preferred SCA No.18319/2015; in which the petitioner herein had pleaded about so-called difficulties on his part in serving in Valsad. In view of the said pleadings, this Honorable Court had, on 1.3.2016, directed the petitioner to make representation. Accordingly, he made representation on 9.3.2016. Since the said request of the petitioner was not entertained, he had preferred SCA No.18319/2015; in which the petitioner herein had pleaded about so-called difficulties on his part in serving in Valsad. In view of the said pleadings, this Honorable Court had, on 1.3.2016, directed the petitioner to make representation. Accordingly, he made representation on 9.3.2016. d. It is submitted that as is admitted by the petitioner himself on page no.8 of the petition, he was not entitled to the initial posting in Ahmedabad District as per the merit list hence, even after the order passed by the Honorable Court on 1.3.2016, he could have at the most requested for his transfer at the place of 2nd or 3rd preference. Instead of seeking transfer to those two districts, he made representation for his transfer to Ahmedabad District. Hence, the said representation could have been rejected even on the said ground alone. e. In addition, the representation dated 9.3.2016 made by the petitioner, was not required to be entertained also on the ground that Merits of the petitioner was lower than the earlier set of 31+3 representations (1st Tranche) and the 2nd Tranches. f. However, since this Honorable Court had, on judicial side, passed an order on 1.3.2016 for considering the family circumstances of the petitioner, the said representation was forwarded to the Administrative Department of this Honorable Court for taking necessary action. In addition to the fact that the case of the petitioner was not equally meritorious, it is also required to be noted that those 34 candidates had immediately approached this Honorable Court; whereas the present petitioner had filed representation two years after his appointment. By that time, much water has flown. Now, after such a long period, it is not possible to post the petitioner to another district disturbing the gradation list existing in the establishment of District Court, Rajkot. If the request of the petitioner is acceded to, the same would have a cascading and ripple effect. Other similarly situated employees would also have to be considered, if the case of the petitioner is considered; which would lead to chaos in the establishments of subordinate judiciary. g. Even otherwise, already a Scheme with respect to employees seeking transfer/inter district transfer after completion of three years of service on one location in the Subordinate Courts is in existence. Other similarly situated employees would also have to be considered, if the case of the petitioner is considered; which would lead to chaos in the establishments of subordinate judiciary. g. Even otherwise, already a Scheme with respect to employees seeking transfer/inter district transfer after completion of three years of service on one location in the Subordinate Courts is in existence. The petitioner herein was posted on the establishment of District Court, Valsad wherein he resumed his duty on 16.11.2013 and as such the petitioner herein completed his three years of service in the District Court, Valsad on 15.11.2016. Hence, before the said date, it was not open to transfer him even to the district for which he was initially eligible. Thus, the representation of the petitioner was premature and hence rightly rejected." 11. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in the year 2018, no premium can be claimed by the petitioner on the basis of the chart which recommended that they could be so accommodated at the district preferences of their choice. Reading the report of the Committee of 04.05.2018 would indicate that the Registry received 51 representations from the candidates seeking modification in their initial posting. A committee was constituted on 21.02.2014 and the report was submitted on 11.04.2014 which, has been reproduced hereinabove. 12. Thereafter, the Registry received 144 representations (2nd Tranche). The relevant portion of the report reads as under: "Thereafter, the Registry had received 144 representations (2nd Tranche) which was placed before Honorable the then Acting Chief Justice, vide an office note dated 7.7.2015 and His Lordship was pleased to consider 55 representations either for one way transfer or inter district transfer, who are higher in merits than the earlier set of 31+3 representations (1st tranche) and remaining 89 representations were rejected on the basis that (i) they are lower in merits than the earlier set of 31 + 3 representations; (ii) personal ground; (iii) seeking posting of 1st or 2nd preferred district though presently appointed at 2nd or 3rd preferred choice; (iv) seeking posting at District NOT preferred/opted for in their online application; (v) Candidates from Regular Select List and/or Wait List claiming posting against Wait Listed candidates. Further, His Lordship had also been pleased to direct the Registry to deal all the future representations that may be received, on similar lines. Further, His Lordship had also been pleased to direct the Registry to deal all the future representations that may be received, on similar lines. Thereafter, the Registry had further received a total of 85 representations till date, which were dealt with on similar lines as per office note dated 7.7.2015, out of which 42 representations were considered, who were higher in merits than the representationists of 1st and 2nd tranche, either for one way transfer or inter-district transfer and the remaining 43 representations were rejected, who were lower in merits than the representationists of 1st and 2nd tranche or for the reasons mentioned herein above. That out of said 16 petitioners - candidates, petitioners - selectees at Sr. Nos.2, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15 and 16 in the said chart/statement (Flag Y) have already been posted at one of their preferred choice of District, while petitioners - selectees at Sr. Nos.1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 & 13 are lower in merits than the earlier set of 31+3 representationists (1st Tranche) and 55 representationists (2nd Tranche). Further, petitioner - selectee at Sr. No.9, has been ordered to be considered for one way transfer or inter district transfer, vide office note dated 4.4.2018. That the petitioners are the selectees - candidates of 1st Centralized Recruitment Process. Thereafter, 2nd Centralized Recruitment Process for filling up 2012 vacancies to the posts of Assistant (Junior Clerk) was concluded upon Committee's Report dated 5.3.2015, having been approved by Full Court (Chamber) Meeting decision dated 10.3.2015. (Flag `D') At present, the 3rd Centralized Recruitment Process has been initiated for filling up 767 vacant posts of Assistant (Junior Clerks), on the establishment of the Subordinate Courts and Brief as well as Detailed Advertisement has already been published for the same and that the Registration of Online Application has also been started from 15.6.2018 (12:00 Hrs.) and closes on 14.07.2018 (23:59 HRS). That the 767 vacancies notified vis-a-vis the 3rd Centralized Recruitment Process have accrued after the 1st and 2nd Centralized Recruitment Process and also in view of the judgment dated 1.2.2010 delivered in the case of Rakhi Ray v. The High Court of Delhi and others (Civil Appeal Nos.1133-1135 of 2010), the said vacancies could not be considered for the 1st Centralized Recruitment Process. Further, this Honorable High Court, already has a Scheme with respect to employees seeking transfer/inter district transfer after completion of 3 years of service at one location in the Subordinate Courts. The said petitioners - candidates have already completed their 3 years of service in respective District Courts. Hence, the said petitioners - candidates would be entitled to apply for inter district transfer. The said Progress Report in form of Chart/Statement is placed before the Honorable Court for perusal and consideration." 13. What is therefore evident from reading the Report is that it was not possible on the administrative side to consider the representations made. Reading the affidavit of the District Court @ Valsad also would indicate that in case the representation of the petitioner was accepted, already 45 posts at the relevant point of the Assistants were vacant and if the petitioner was sought to be relieved, it would result in administrative difficulties in the working of the District Court. 14. What therefore emerges from all these facts is concerned that the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of the Assistant (Junior Clerk). Pursuant to the advertisement, preferences were given. On the administrative side, the High Court carried out the exercise of recruitment. Looking to the magnitude of the exercise undertaken as far as possible 71% or so were given the district preferences of their choice. 28% could not get the district preferences as sought by them. In the year 2014, on the basis of representations made, as a one time measure, such representationists were given the benefit of inter district transfer. Having waited for two years after his appointment on 14.10.2013 and accepting the posting and resuming his duties on 16.11.2013, a representation was made only on 21.10.2015 and based on an order passed by this Court on 01.03.2016, a representation was made on 09.03.2016 requesting a posting as per his preference, especially at Ahmedabad looking to his father's condition which was considered and rejected. 15. The rejection cannot be faulted inasmuch as, what was pressed into service was the ailment of the father in the year 2012. 15. The rejection cannot be faulted inasmuch as, what was pressed into service was the ailment of the father in the year 2012. Secondly, admittedly even as per the petitioner the candidate posted at Ahmedabad had a higher merit of 103.74 marks which was lower than that of the petitioner who had secured 102.10 marks and, therefore, admittedly even according to the petitioner, he could not claim Ahmedabad as the district of his choice. 16. Reading the reports in the entirety together with the affidavit in reply would indicate that the petitioner approached the Court after the 1st and the 2nd tranche were considered. The petitioner was found lower in merit than those candidates who had such representations considered in their favour. Moreover, reshuffling at this stage would cause administrative difficulties to the institution where the petitioner is engaged at Valsad, inasmuch as, on twin grounds namely; even otherwise there is a paucity of candidates accepting appointments at South Gujarat and Saurashtra, Valsad had a deficit and re-posting the petitioner at the district preference of his choice, even at Kheda which was his 3rd would result in administrative difficulties at Valsad. 17. For all the aforesaid reasons, these petitions are not entertained and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Rule is discharged. 18. No orders of Civil Applications in view of dismissal of the main matters.