The present petition is directed against the decision of the respondent authorities in not considering the option given by the petitioner for absorption of his services under the newly created establishment of District Collector, Gandhinagar. By invoking powers of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed also for setting aside of order dated 08.06.200 of District Collector, Mehsana, by which the persons in the cadre of clerk were, according to the petitioner, arbitrarily accommodated by the said authority by absorbing them under the Gandhinagar Collector establishment. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was originally appointed as clerk with effect from 06.02.1990 in the office of District Collector, Mehsana. The petitioner thereafter worked at different places and lastly was posted in March 1999 in the office of Mamaltdar, Vijapur. Since then he had been working there. It is stated in the petition that at the time of joining service, the petitioner had given address of his father with whom he was staying at the relevant time, however, when he was transferred to Kalol, he got a dwelling house at Kalol and it is his case that he has been staying there since 1995. In support, he has produced receipts of payment of tax, electricity bill etc.
3. The petitioner felt aggrieved as he was not absorbed in the newly created establishment of District Collector, Gandhinagar, when the State Government reconstituted Gandhinagar and Mehasana districts in December 1999, by issuing notification under the relevant provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. By that exercise, Kalol taluka was excluded from Mehsana district and came to be included in Gandhinagar district. As a result of this reconstitution, it became necessary for the respondents to transfer employees from the set up of Mehsana district to the Gandhinagar set up.
3.1 For the purpose of shuffling and placing the employees under the set up of Mehsana district and Gandhinagar district upon reconstitution, the respondent authorities invited options and called upon the employees concerned to give their option for absorption in the either district. According to the petitioner, he submitted his option on 19.01.2000 opting to be absorbed under the establishment of District Collector, Gandhinagar. It is his case that his option was not considered by the authorities. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Collector, Mehsana thereafter issued circular dated 14.02.2000. By virtue of that circular addressed to all Mamaltdars and other offices concerned, instructions were given to submit option of those employees who had not submitted their options, and required that option may be submitted latest by 17.02.200. According to the petitioner, he did not submit option pursuant to said circular dated 14.02.2000 as had already submitted one earlier.
3.2 It is further stated that another circular dated 05.05.2000 was issued as the vacancies had arisen in Gandhinagar and proposals from the employees interested to be transferred by foregoing their seniority were called for to be submitted within 7 days. In the impugned order dated 08.06.2000 passed by the District Collector, Mehsana, as per the contention of the petitioner, services of 10 Mamaltdars, 7 clerks and 4 peons were absorbed in the Gandhinagar district by accepting their options, however in that the name of the petitioner did not figure. It is the say of the petitioner that junior employees were considered and their options were accepted by the respondent authorities.
4. This court heard Ms. Rutuja Oza, learned advocate appearing for Senior Counsel Mr. R.J.Oza for the petitioner. Learned Assistant Govt. Pleader Mr. Kabir Hathi appeared for the State.
4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that option given by the petitioner for absorption in the Gandhinagar district ought to have been accepted by the respondents. He relied on the resolution dated 26.11.1998 which was in respect of reconstitution of new Patan district which contained guidelines for absorption of employees, by contending that the guidelines contained therein regarding absorption were to be commonly applied and hence would apply to the petitioner’s case as well. Learned advocate also relied on communication dated 19.05.1998 from the Revenue Department addressed to all district Collectors regarding allocation of staff in the newly created districts. On the basis of said resolution and communication, it was submitted that the paramount criteria for considering of option of an employee was the place of his permanent residence. It was submitted that the petitioner was resident of Kalol which was in the Gandhinagar district and, therefore, absorption of the petitioner in Gandhinagar as per option given by him deserved favourable consideration as per respondents’ own guidelines. Learned advocate also assailed order dated 08.06.2000 questioning the non-inclusion of the petitioner’s name even as other employees were transferred to Gandhinagar and the option already given by the petitioner was ignored. It was submitted that the persons who were placed under Gandhinagar set up included employees junior to the petitioner, and therefore, the order was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
4.2 Learned Assistant Govt. Pleader on the other hand submitted that service book of the petitioner showed that he was resident of Haspur village of Vijapur taluka in Mehsana district. It was submitted that the option of the petitioner was considered on the basis of the record in his service book as regards his residence, which was shown to be in Mehsana district. According learned Assistant Govt. Pleader, therefore, the authorities considered option of the petitioner in accordance with the applicable guidelines only and the authorities were justified to act on the basis of the service record of the petitioner. It was additionally submitted that in any case, it was hardly possible for the State Government to absorb each and every employee as per their option. With regard to the impugned order dated 08.06.2000, learned Assistant Govt. Pleader submitted that the Collector, Gandhinagar vide his letter dated 05.05.2000 had issued directions that the employees desirous to come to Gandhinagar district by losing their seniority may apply within 7 days, but the petitioner did not choose to make any application in pursuance to that letter.
5. Having regard to the facts of the case on record of the petition and having considered rival submissions, the petitioner could not have insisted as of right that his option to be absorbed under a particular set up only. When any district is reconstituted by the State Government in competent exercise of its statutory powers, it necessarily results into division of and changes in the administrative set up, which in turn, entails some inconvenience to the employees and hardships to them here and there. In order to see that the hardship to the employees so resulting may be mitigated, the authorities invite options calling upon the employees to choose for their absorption in either of the set up. The option given by an employee cannot bind the authorities that it would always be acted upon favourably as per the demand of the employee. The reshuffling of employees and readjustment of posting in the newly created set ups has to cater to the needs of the administration in the first place. The guidelines regarding consideration of option for absorption cannot be construed as creating any enforceable right for the employees for acceptance of such option in all circumstances. The guidelines in this regard are part of an administrative policy, under which the option is invited from an employee.
5.1 An option given does not confer any vested right for its acceptance.
Reshuffling of administration upon reconstitution of a district and consequential effect on the posting of an employee has to be considered as a necessary incidence of service in the government. The circulars relied on by the petitioner were in the nature of administrative instructions. Though it contained a criteria of permanent residence as one of the considerations for acceptance of the option given by an employee, it could not be treated as obligatory for the authorities irrespective of administrative exigencies which the authorities may be facing. The policy resolutions and circulars were in the nature of guidelines not to create an enforceable right as such for the petitioner.
6. The above proposition is fortified by order of this court in Special Civil Application No.3044 of 2001 in Sureshbhai Parsottamdas Naik Vs. District Collector and others, wherein dealing with similar set of facts and similar prayers, this court observed as under:
“Keeping in light the contentions upon reconstitution of the districts, reshuffling of staff on establishment of the reconstituted districts becomes essential, and ordinarily, options are invited but, it cannot be overlooked that, option exercised by the employees may be always not possible to accept. Similarly, a care is also required to be taken to see that the seniority of the employees is not drastically changed or affected. ... It is true that home town was a parameter but that was only a guideline and would not make it mandatory for the authorities to implement.”
7. Moreover, coming to the factual specifics of this case, the service record in the nature of service book of the petitioner showed that the permanent residence of the petitioner was in Mehsana district. If the respondent authorities had taken into account those details while considering the option stated to have been given by the petitioner for absorption in Gandhinagar district, the respondents cannot be said to have acted unreasonably or arbitrarily. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had submitted details of his new residence as per case now put up in the petition to his employer to be incorporated in the service record, and which was not acted upon. The authorities cannot be faulted for their acting on the basis of record of residence in the service book. In that light the contention that junior employee's option was accepted does not sustain, and was misconceived as well.
8. As far as the challenge to the order dated 08.06.2000 is concerned, the petitioner did not apply within 7 days, as required to come under the Gandhinagar district by loosing his seniority. In not so applying, the petitioner may have his own reasons. He may not be wanting to lose seniority. Be as it may. Once the petitioner is found not to have applied within the prescribed time limit anything more is not required to be probed into by this court. When the petitioner did not apply within the required time for coming under Gandhinagar, petitioner's case could not have been considered and he could not have made a grievance that his name was not included in the order dated 08.06.2000.
9. In view of foregoing reasons and above premise, the petitioner does not have any legal right which could be enforced through this court exercising powers under Article 226. Absence of legal right disentitles the petitioner to seek a writ of mandamus. Therefore, relief prayed in the petition cannot be granted.
10. The petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to the costs. Interim relief, if any, stand vacated. Rule is discharged.
(N.V. ANJARIA, J.) devu