PER: MR. J. B. PARDIWALA, J. :

1. Since the subject matter of all these appeals is the same, and the challenge is also to a common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. All the four appeals are at the instance of unsuccessful petitioners of the respective Special Civil Applications referred to above, and are directed against the judgment and order dated 10th June, 2013, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, by which His Lordship rejected all the writ applications.

2. The facts shortly stated may be summarized as under:-

LPA No. 794 of 2013 : The appellants are all employees serving as Assistants (Junior Clerks) on the establishment of the Metropolitan Court at Ahmedabad, except the appellants No. 33 and 34, who were appointed as Stenographers. It is the case of the appellants that although their appointments were under the Recruitment Rules of 1957, after undergoing due selection process against regular vacant and sanctioned posts, they are being termed as 'ad hoc/temporary employees'. The appellants, by filing a writ-application, being Special Civil Application No. 8443 of 2012, challenged the recruitment of English and Gujarati Stenographers (Grade I and II) and Assistants (Junior Clerks), pursuant to the advertisement bearing No. RC-1434 of 2011 dated 21st February, 2012, which was notified by the High Court of Gujarat on its website. It is their case that their names were called from the Employment Exchange, according to the provisions of Rule 10 of the Recruitment Rules of 1957; they were all subjected to the typing test and each of the appellants had passed the required tests of minimum 40 words per minute in English and 25 words per minute in Gujarati. So far as the Stenographers are concerned, they were asked to undergo test of shorthand also. All the appellants had successfully passed the requisite tests, which were conducted by the Advisory Committee formed under the Recruitment Rules of 1957. It is also their case that they were thereafter, interviewed for selection by the Advisory Committee consisting of the then Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Metropolitan Magistrate and senior-most Metropolitan Magistrate. At the relevant point of time, around 1500 to 2,000 candidates were called and subjected to various tests and oral interviews by the Advisory Committee and the appellants were thereafter appointed against the regular vacancies. It is their case that after having completed three years of service, they expected to be continued in service as permanent employees, but they were taken by surprise when they learnt that the High Court was conducting a general recruitment under the advertisement referred to above. According to the advertisement, recruitment was to be made to ten posts of Gujarati Stenographers Grade II and 62 posts of Assistants (Junior Clerks). In such circumstances, they were left with no other option but to file a writ-application praying for an appropriate writ, order or direction on the respondents to treat them as regularly appointed employees on the respective posts with effect from their date of joining the service. They also prayed for an appropriate direction on the respondents to confirm them on the respective posts and place them in a regular pay-scale with all consequential benefits. The appellants also thought fit to pray for an appropriate writ declaring that the fresh recruitment initiated pursuant to the advertisement referred to above was de hors the Rules of 1957 and was without any sanction of law.

LPA No. 809 of 2013 : The appellants are all employees serving as Assistants (Junior Clerks) on ad-hoc basis on the establishment of the District Court at Valsad. It is the case of the appellants that they had applied for the posts of Peon and Assistants (Junior Clerks), pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Advisory Committee of the Distr