By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: (B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent no.2 to appointment the petitioner in Sabarkantha District instead of Navsari district for the post of TalaticumMantri Village Gram Panchayat (Panchayat Service ClassIII).
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to direct directing the respondent no.2 to appointment the petitioner in Sabarkantha District instead of Navsari District for the post of TalaticumMantri Village Gram Panchayat (Panchayat Service ClassIII).
2. Brief facts as narrated in the petition are as under:
2.1 The petitioner applied for the post of TalaticumMantri (Panchyat Service ClassIII) in respect of advertisement issued by the respondent no.2 on 28.12.2010 and at the time of applying on Internet, the petitioner had given preference to Sabarkantha, Kheda, Mehsana, Gandhinagar and Anand District. The exam was held on 05.06.2011 and the result for the same was declared on 17.09.2011, but he was appointed as TalaticumMantri of Village Gram at Edi.Ashta gram, Taluka Navsari instead of the place preferred by the petitioner for the fixed pay of Rs. 5,300/on adhoc basis.
3. Heard Mr. Amit P. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Pranav Dave, learned AGP for the respondents.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Amit P. Patel for the petitioners submitted that as per the news paper report there are 150 posts of village TalaticumMantri in Sabarkantha district. Out of which, 126 persons were selected and from which only 90 candidates remained present and 36 candidates remained absent. Even till today no appointment order is issued to any candidates in Sabarkantha district. Till today there are vacant post in Sabarkantha district for which the petitioner has already given preference at the time of applying on line and more particularly the petitioner is belonging to Sabarkantha District.
4. The respondents have filed their reply, wherein, they have stated that the place preferred by the petitioner could not be allotted to him because he has not obtained necessary marks in the examination. It is further submitted by the respondents that para 10(7) of the advertisement suggests that the appointment will be given on the basis of meritcumpreference given by the candidate and the candidate is bound to accept the appointment in any other District as may be decided by the authority.
5. Having learned advocate for both the sides and having gone through the documents on record, it is clear that the options called for from the candidates of their preferences are only to facilitate the appointing authority for deciding the place of posting to the extent, if possible, as per the preference given by the candidate, but the preference called for do not give feasible right to candidates to claim the place of posting as of right. It is the prerogative of the department to decide and to post selected candidate wherever vacancies are available. The petitioner cannot challenge this discretion of the appointing authority without showing malafide. There is also a possibility that the place obtained by the present petitioner has also been obtained by so many other candidates in view of their merit in the select list and according to their respective merits, concerned candidates might have been alloted the place of posting, which the present petitioner is seeking for.
6. Thus, in view of what has been discussed above, the view taken by the respondent authorities is just and proper and thus, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed accordingly. However, the present petitioner is at liberty to file representation for his grievance, if he so desires, within a month from today.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J] ssiddharth//