1. By way of this petition, petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
“(A) Your Lordships 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 concerned respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of Assistant Dealers and Ringmen respectively since the petitioners are already selected for the same and since there are vacancies in the said post;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside communication dated 18.12.2009 (at Annexure-K hereto);
(C) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondents from appointing any candidates on the posts of Assistant Dealers and Ringmen respectively, except from the select list published in Gujarat Government Gazetter dated 27.8.2009 (at Anneuxre-H hereto) and not to cancel the said select list;
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:
2.1 By way of the present petition, the petitioners seek appropriate directions upon the concerned respondents herein to give appointment to the present petitioners pursuant to their selection on the concerned post of the Geology & Mining Department (Class-III) pursuant to the advertisement, which was issued by respondent No.3 herein. The petitioners having appeared in the selection process and have cleared the written as well as oral examinations.
Thereafter, the select list was prepared in which the names of the petitioners were there. It is their case that despite the same, the petitioners have not been given appointment order.
2.2 Petitioners were pursuant to the advertisement published in the News Paper and after completing the written as well as oral examinations, respondents have selected them and Selection List was prepared.
2.3 The petitioners have reliably learnt that the petitioners will not be given appointment and in fact one of the above petitioners have been communicated in writing by respondent No.2 herein that the appointments for the posts in question shall be made by outsourcing and therefore respondent No.3 herein is informed by the said department that there is no need
arbitrary, discriminatory and unjustified.
2.4 It is the case of the petitioners that appointment orders are not issued in favour of the petitioners which is violative under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, respondent may be directed to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioners.
3. Counsel for the respondent contended that as the policy decision was taken that the work be taken from outsourcing and, therefore, the appointment orders have not been issued in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, it is decided by the State Government not to operate the select list.
4. Mr.Majmudar, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent-Authority cannot cancel the select list.
5. Heard Mr.Majmudar and Mr.Rathod learned advocates for the petitioners and Mr.Pranav Dave, learned AGP for the respondent/s.
6. Before proceeding with the matter, it is clear that names of the petitioners are placed in the select list and therefore, selection is not in dispute. Nonetheless, the State Government before operation of the select list, decided to fill up the post by outsourcing work.
7. A policy decision is taken not to fill any post through select list. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to be appointed on the said post in question. However, if the select list is to be operated then petitioners should be considered.
8. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of. Rule discharged.
(ashish) (K.S.JHAVERI, J.)