JUDGMENT : 1. These two petitions are filed for common reliefs and raising identical issues and hence, both the matters are taken up for joint hearing and disposal. The facts are extracted from Special Civil Application No.5508 of 2015. 2. This petition is filed by two petitioners, inter alia, for following prayers as under:- “(B) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the illegal, illogical, arbitrary, discriminatory action of respondent authorities in not considering the petitioners for granting Deemed Date in the cadre of PHN Tutor, though, petitioners were eligible and entitled to be considered for the promotion as PHN Tutor w.e.f. 04.03.1992, therefore be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders for granting Deemed Date in the cadre of PHN Tutor w.e.f. 04.03.1992 to the petitioners and respondents may kindly be further directed to grant all the benefits including consequential benefits, difference of salary w.e.f. 04.03.1992 and the same may be ordered to be granted to the petitioners with 12% interest; (C) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the communication / order dated 21.02.2015 of the respondent authorities; Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities;- (D) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to restrain the respondent authority from undertaking/finalizing the procedure in respect of filing up the post of Principal Nursing Officer without considering the cases of the petitioners for the same. (E) Be pleased to grant interim relief and by way of interim order, be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from filing up the true posts of Principal Nursing Officer, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present Petition; (F) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order ordirection and be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant the Deemed Date of 04.03.1992 to the petitioners, as the date on which other junior employee viz. Smt. Manjulaben M. Bagthariya has been promoted as PHN Tutor, though, she was junior then the petitioners in respect of eligibility of PHN Tutor, though other juniors Shri R.G. Nai and Smt. Pratiksha J. Brahmbhatt have also been granted Deemed Date w.e.f. 04.03.1992, therefore, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant Deemed Date of 04.03.1992 with all consequential benefits to the petitioners, as aforesaid junior employees have already been granted the Deemed Date of PHN Tutor w.e.f 04.03.1992;” 3. It is a case where the petitioners are claiming to grant deemed date of 04.03.1992 to the petitioners as one another junior colleague Smt. Manjulaben M. Bagthariya, who acquired eligibility criteria for Public Health Nurse subsequent to the eligibility criteria acquired by the petitioners, however, said Smt. Manjulaben M. Bagthariya came to be promoted as Public Health Nurse on 04.03.1992 and petitioner No.1 came to be promoted as Public Health Nurse on 13.11.2000 and petitioner No.2 came to be promoted as Public Health Nurse on 17.08.2000. 4. Thus, without any justifiable reasons, the petitioners were not considered for promotion when order of promotion came to be issued on 20.02.1992 in case of Smt. Manjulaben M. Bagthariya, though, thereafter, the petitioners have made number of representations, requesting the authorities to grant deemed date in the cadre of Public Health Nurse. 5. Recently, a decision has been taken dated 21.02.2015 and concerned authorities have observed that, as the issue has not been finalized by the State Government, the request of the petitioners for granting deemed date in the cadre of Public Health Nurse could not have been considered, therefore, the said communication dated 21.02.2015 as well as action of the concerned respondent authorities of not considering the petitioners for deemed date w.e.f. 04.03.1992 is challenged. 6. 6. The petitioners challenged the order dated 21.02.2015 on further additional grounds to the effect that the cadre of ‘Staff Nurse’ is a feeder cadre post for filing up the post of 'Public Health Nurse’, as per the recruitment rules for the post of Public Health Nurse and names of the petitioners had already appeared on the roll of Staff Nurse from May 1987 and onwards as well as even in October, 1986 and thereafter and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside as post of Staff Nurse was admittedly a feeder cadre post and therefore, filing up the post of Public Health Nurse was by way of promotions as petitioners were already considered for the same but were not given deemed date where juniors came to be considered for the same and therefore, as the petitioners were already made Public Health Nurses that too without their being any condition for probation period, the same would establish beyond doubt that post of Public Health Nurse was filled in through promotion channel and the same was never treated to be filled in by adopting the procedure of direct recruitment. 7. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners have successfully completed B.Sc. Nursing, as the examination was conducted in March, 1991 and result came to be declared in June, 1991. Thus, as per the recruitment rules, petitioners had already gained/ achieved the eligibility criteria/qualification prescribed for the post of Public Health Nurse/Nursing Tutor and they were required to be considered as they were already within the zone of consideration for considering the promotion on the promotional post. though, petitioners were passed B.Sc. Nursing examination prior in point of time i.e. prior to so many other Nurses who were appointed prior in point of time than the petitioners as Staff Nurse but they had not gained necessary qualification for Public Health Nurse, however, the petitioners had already cleared the B.Sc. Nursing as aforesaid and they became eligible and entitled to be considered for promotion. Nursing as aforesaid and they became eligible and entitled to be considered for promotion. 7.1 The petitioners state that the petitioners came to be considered for promotion for the post of Public Health Nurse in the year 2000, however, one Smt. M.M. Bagtharia came to be appointed/ promoted straightway as Public Health Nurse by order dated 20.02.1992 on the basis of her educational qualification of Diploma in Public Health Nurse as she had passed the Diploma in Public Health Nurse in May, 1991. As the petitioners had gained qualification of B.Sc. Nursing in March, 1991 and therefore, the petitioners ought to have been granted the deemed date of 04.03.1992-the date on which the aforesaid Smt. Bagtharia resumed. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that petitioners Shri Vrushikkumar Chhanalal Shah and Shri Mahendrakumar Prabhudas Patel were appointed as Staff Nurse, on 11.05.1987 and on 16.05.1987 respectively. Thereafter, upon obtaining requisite qualification as per Notification dated 12.09.1984, issued by the Heath and Family Welfare Department, Government of Gujarat, and considering the recruitment rules and roster, both the petitioners were promoted as Public Heath Nurse on 13.11.2000 and on 17.08.2000 respectively. 9. It is submitted that Smt. Manjulaben M. Bagthariya with other 6 candidates were belonging to O.B.C. (Other Backward Class) and S.C./S.T. (Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribe) Class. None of them were of general category. It is further clarified in the said order that, those appointments had been made so as to comply the instructions of the Government to fill up the number of vacant posts in reserved category and long pending backlog. 10. It is submitted that petitioners are trying tomisguide the Court by making false contentions that several junior candidates were promoted as P.H.N and Tutor. It is clear from order dated 20.02.1992 that none of the unreserved category candidates, whose name appears on said order were promoted as P.H.N or Tutor but were appointed on said posts. 11. Both the petitioners belong to General category (Open category) and therefore they were not considered for the post of Public Health Nurse at the relevant point of time. It is submitted that if the petitioners herein were of the reserved category, the respondent would have considered them for Public Health Nurse at the time of passing the order dated 20.02.1992. 11.1. It is submitted that both the petitioners are not eligible to get deemed date. It is submitted that if the petitioners herein were of the reserved category, the respondent would have considered them for Public Health Nurse at the time of passing the order dated 20.02.1992. 11.1. It is submitted that both the petitioners are not eligible to get deemed date. It is further submitted that from the date of passing Bsc. Nursing and till the date of their appointment as P.H.N./Tutor, no general category candidates have been appointed on the post of P.H.N./Tutor, as there was no vacant post for General Category candidate on the said post. 12. The Court has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The appointment to the post of Public Health Nurse is governed by the recruitment rules namely The Public Health Nurses Class-III (Public Health Medical and Medical Education Department) Rules, 1984. Clause 2 and 3 read as under:- “2. Appointment to the post of the Public Health Nurse shall be made by direct selection only. 3. To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post mentioned in rule-2, a candidate shall:- (a) not be more than 40 years of age, (b) be a qualified nurse-mid-wife and possess a certificate in public Health Nursing or shall possess a B.Sc. In Nursing recognized by the Indian Nursing Council.” 13. The rules were amended to read as under:- “Namely:- Appointment to the post of Public Health Nurse shall be made- (a) either by promotion or a person of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the cadre of general nurse having the qualification as per prescribed in 3(b); or (b) by direct section.” 14. The petitioners came to be appointed as Staff Nurse under respondent No.1. The petitioner No.1 came to be appointed in May, 1987 and petitioner No.2 came to be appointed as Staff Nurse in October, 1986. 15. It is the case of the petitioners that though, the petitioners had fulfilled all the criteria for being considered for the post of Public Health Nurse/ Nursing Tutor i.e. in or around June, 1991, petitioners were not considered at all and one another employee who was junior to the petitioners in respect of achieving the qualification and eligibility criteria for Public Health Nurse/Nursing Tutor as one Smt. Manjulaben M. Bagthariya who was also appointed as Staff Nurse but she had gained the qualification of Public Health Nurse in July, 1991. The petitioners state that, said Smt. Manjulaben M. Bagthariya was junior than the present petitioners, she was considered for the promotion and by an order dated 20.02.1992. 16. From the record, it appears that candidate viz. Smt. M.M. Bagthariya had passed the BSC Nursing Course in July 1991 and was appointed as Public Health Nurse (PHN) on 04.03.1992 (as she resumed as PHN on 04.03.1992). Order dated 20.02.1992 passed by the Health and Family Welfare Department regarding appointment of Smt. Manjulaben M. Bagthariya. As per the rules of government, it is necessary to maintain the rosters for each sanctioned post. In case the sanctioned post are not filled up due to any reason, in such case junior candidates are also considered for such vacant post. Clause No. 12 and 13 of the GCSR Rules 2002 provides the guidance for fixation of Deemed Date and Re-Adjustment Date. Clause No. 12 and 13 read as follows : “12. Deemed date:- In case junior employees are promoted earlier than senior employees for administrative or any other reasons, date of promotion to junior employee is considered as Deemed date. In calculation of service of 9/18/27 years cadre, actual deemed date of these senior employees is already taken into consideration, therefore in such case where deemed date is given, the same should be taken in consideration while calculation of higher pay scale. Means tenure of service in cadre of 9/18/27 years, deemed date should be taken in calculation of such service. 13. Re-Adjusted Date: Recruitment rules for appointment on various cadre posts have been fixed. In these rules provisions for appointment by direct recruitment and by way of promotion have been made. Where vacant posts are to be filled up by both ways, in that case it is prescribed as to how many posts, when and at what ratio it is to be filled. Likewise, when actual appointment is not done/posts are not filled, then, in order to make the appointment of actually appointed employees in tune of provisions of the Recruitment Rules Re-Adjustment date is fixed of such appointed employees. Date fixed like this is called as READJUSTED DATE. Anticipated date is always a previous one to the date of actual appointment/promotion date. Scheme of higher pay scale is to resolve the problem of insufficient Scope of promotion. Date fixed like this is called as READJUSTED DATE. Anticipated date is always a previous one to the date of actual appointment/promotion date. Scheme of higher pay scale is to resolve the problem of insufficient Scope of promotion. Re-Adjustment date is fixed in order to decide the preference in actual Promotion, in accordance with Policy related Principles as the textbook/perfect implementation of the same gives rise to the contradiction, for calculation of regular and 9/18/27 year service, qualification shall have to be fixed considering the service rendered in one/singular cadre. Therefore, Re-Adjustment date cannot be taken in calculation in scheme for calculating of 9/18/27 year service. Instead of that, continuous and regular service in single cadre shall be considered. 17. That, Mrs. Kailas Nayak had passed the P.H.N. course in July 1990 and she also came to be appointed as Public Health Nurse vide same order dated 20.02.1992 as she belongs to O.B.C. category (other backward class). After passing the examination conducted by G.P.S.C. Mrs. Kailas Nayak was appointed as Principal Nursing Officer. That Smt. Manjulaben M. Bagthariya with other 6 candidates were belonging to O.B.C. (Other Backward Class) and S.C./S.T. (Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribe) Class. 18. None of them were of general category. those appointments had been made so as to comply the instructions of the Government to fill up the number of vacant post in reserved category and long pending backlog. 19. The State has taken into consideration all the grounds of representation by the petitioner and has assigned reasons that the employees serving as Staff Nurse in the State, who have passed B.Sc. (Nursing)/P.H.N. Course, were given an appointment as Nursing Tutor/ P.H.N. as per merit order. Upon instructions of the Government to carry forward the reserved backlog posts, by Office Order No.100/ B/92 dated 20/02/1992, the nurses passed B.Sc./Diploma in Nursing Education/D.P.H.N. examination were appointed on completely ad-hoc basis in the pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 as P.H.N./Tutor. As Mrs. M.M. Bagatharia, Nurse, Sr. No.7 of the said order had passed examination of educational qualification of D.P.H.N. by May-1991 and as she belonged to Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, she was appointed as P.H.N. at Female Health Worker School, Bhiloda and she joined duty on 04.03.1992. As the appointment of Mr. R.G. Nayee was directly in Nursing Tutor cadre, case was submitted for confirmation of the Government over deemed date. As the appointment of Mr. R.G. Nayee was directly in Nursing Tutor cadre, case was submitted for confirmation of the Government over deemed date. In context thereof, the Government by letter No.NSG/102008/1027/E dated 18/10/2011, replied that deemed date granted under RTI cannot be confirmed for Mr. R.G. Nayee. Accordingly, deemed date granted to Mr. R.G. Nayee w.e.f. 04.03.1992 has been canceled vide Office Order No.379/B-8/17 dated 24/04/2017. The deemed date granted to Mrs. Pratiksha J. Brahmabhatt w.e.f. 04.03.1992 was also canceled vide Office Order No.380/B-8/17 dated 24.04.2017 as the appointment of Mrs. Brahmabhatt in Nursing Tutor Cadre was direct appointment. Separate proposal was sent to the Government in the similar case of Mrs. Saraswatiben Naghora, P.H.N. to grant deemed date and re-adjustment date. In this case, the Government has replied by letter dated 24.09.2015 that Mrs. Naghora is not eligible for deemed date or re-adjustment date. Thus, as the deemed dates of Mr. R.G. Nayee, Nursing Tutor, Class-3 cadre and Mrs. Pratiksha J. Brahmabhatt, P.H.N., Class-3 have not been confirmed as they are holding direct appointment, the same are rejected. Aforesaid issues have been considered thoroughly and at the end of consideration, Mr. V.C. Shah by Office Order No.2186/B-3/2000 dated 13.11.2000 and Mr. M.P. Patel by Office Order No.1853/B-3/2000 dated 17.08.2000 have been given direct appointment as Nursing Tutor, Class-3 cadre and there is no provision to grant deemed date in direct appointment. 20. The claim of the petitioners is strongly based on the case of one Smt. Bagthariya that she has been given appointment by direct recruitment and has attained qualification after the petitioners. However, the appointment of the said Smt. Bagthariya has been explained in preceding paras. For filling up the vacancy in reserved category, the petitioners have also been given the benefit of appointment by direct recruitment as and when vacancy was available and now the claim of the petitioners is to change the track and treat them to have been appointed by way of promotion to claim the deemed date of promotion w.e.f. 04.03.1992. Such a claim has been raised for the first time in the year 2010 and that too when the petitioners themselves were given the appointment to the post of PHN Tutor on 13.11.2000 and 17.08.2000 respectively and thereafter waited for 10 years to make representation and 15 years to file petition. 21. Such a claim has been raised for the first time in the year 2010 and that too when the petitioners themselves were given the appointment to the post of PHN Tutor on 13.11.2000 and 17.08.2000 respectively and thereafter waited for 10 years to make representation and 15 years to file petition. 21. In view of the above, no case is made out for interference and hence, the petition deserve to be and the same are hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.