JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of notice of rule.

2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction on the respondent authorities to recommend his name for the appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Prosecutor (Class-II).

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

3.1 The Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) had issued an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicle Prosecutor (Class-II) by way of direct selection. By way of the said advertisement, in all 7 posts were advertised out of which one post was reserved for a candidate belonging to SEBC category.

3.2. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed to appear in the preliminary examination which was scheduled on 06.09.2015. Accordingly, the petitioner had appeared in the preliminary examination. On 18.04.2016, the GPSC had published the result of the preliminary examination, wherein the name of the petitioner was duly included as a successful candidate.

3.3. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed to remain present for personal interview on 27.03.2017. Accordingly, the petitioner had appeared for the oral interview. The GPSC had published the result of the recruitment process on 28.09.2017. From the perusal of the said result it is evident that the name of the petitioner was kept on the waiting list for SEBC category at serial No.1. One Mr.Kalyansinh Sukhdevan Gadhvi, who was recommended by the GPSC to the Government for appointment as SEBC category candidate was appointed by the State Government and he had joined the services on 20.03.2018. The said candidate had also cleared the examination for appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, Class-II and accordingly he was appointed to the said post by the State Government. Upon appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, Class-II, he had left the service from the post of Motor Vehicle Prosecutor, Class -II on 12.03.2019, i.e. within a period of one year from the date of joining service.

4. Learned advocate Mr.V.A.Vyas, while inviting the attention of this Court to the impugned communication dated 08.06.2019, has submitted that the case of the petitioner has been solely rejected in view of the provisions of circular dated 24.12.2008. While referring to the circular dated 24.12.2008, more particularly, paragraph no.1 thereof, he has submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 27.12.2011 passed in Special Civil Application No.4238 of 2011 has held that such operation of the waiting list would be discriminating and violating of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He has submitted that once the candidate has resigned and the post has fallen vacant, as per the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 24.12.2011, the respondents have to recommend the name of the petitioner for the appointment of the concerned post. It is submitted by him that after interim relief dated 27.12.2011, the State appointed the concerned petitioner and by the order dated 16.07.2012, the said writ petition was disposed of.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr.V.A.Vyas has further submitted that while responding to the contents raised by the petitioner in the writ petition, in the affidavit the respondent-State has placed reliance on the resolution dated 27.07.2018 issued by the General Administration Department (GAD). He has submitted that in fact the aforesaid resolution would take care all the grievance of the petitioner, however the same is not applied in the case of the petitioner only because the respondents have construed the said resolution being prospective in nature. Further, reliance has been placed by him on the judgment dated 21.10.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.15682 of 2014 and allied matters. The same is further challenged in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.1566 and 1027 of 2015, however, no stay is granted. Thus, he has submitted that the case of the petitioner h