#. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
#. The petitioners are praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ directing the respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioners as four hours part time sweepers in Kheda Camp Head Quarter. Further prayer is made for quashing and setting aside the order dated 21.10.99 passed by respondent No.1 in favour of alleged favourites giving them appointment as four hour part time sweepers at Head Quarter at Kheda. Next prayer has been made for grant of interim relief.
#. From the record of the special civil application, I find that the respondent No.1 invited applications for making selection of part time sweepers. Interviews were held on 2.10.99. The petitioners admit that they all were called for interview and they had appeared in the interview. It is their grievance that they have not been selected. Thereafter, the petitioners went on hunger strike at Gandhinagar against respondent No.1 against these alleged illegal appointments and this pressure tactics adopted by them resulted in fruits in their favour as the respondent No.1 gave them appointments as part time sweepers for two hours. On being put by the court, the learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that these appointments were given to the petitioners by respondent No.1 without inviting application and making any selection.
#. The petitioners have right of consideration for appointment which right has not been denied to them. It is a matter of selection and in case they have not been selected, the grievance made in this petition cannot be accepted. The petitioners are alleging malafides against respondent No.1 in the form that he had selected his own favourites but the respondent No.1 has not been impleaded as a party in his personal capacity. Secondly, those appointees whose appointment orders have been challenged are not parties before this court in this special civil application. Not only this, even a copy of the order dated 21.10.99 under which those appointments were given has not been filed on the record of this writ petition. Even in the writ petition, the petitioners have not given out what is the relation of those appointees with respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioners made reference to the document at page No.16, a notice which has been sent by them to respondent No.1 and therein, names of those persons have been given which are six in number and even after going through this document, it is difficult to accept that those are the malafide appointments made by respondent No.1.
#. This writ petition is wholly misconceived and the same is dismissed.
(S.K.Keshote, J.) (sunil)