JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is filed by three petitioners praying for a direction to the respondent No.1 i.e. the High Court of Gujarat on the administrative side to give appointments to the petitioners as Gujarati Stenographers, Grade-III, pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.08.2018 as the names of the petitioners are at serial nos. 1, 6 and 17 in the wait list dated 14.08.2019. It is the case of the petitioners that candidates with less merit than the petitioners are given appointments on 05.08.2020 and the unfilled vacancies are required to be filled in as per the Government Resolution dated 10.08.2016.

2. Heard Mr.K.B.Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioners and Ms.Trusha K Patel, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Though served, nobody appears for the respondents 3 and 4.

3. Mr.K.B.Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit as under:

3.1 Drawing the Courts attention to the advertisement, issued by the respondent No.1, he would submit that by the said advertisement dated 13.08.2018, applications were invited for 184 vacancies of Gujarati Stenographers, Grade-III (Class-3), in the subordinate Courts of the State of Gujarat. The category wise vacancy also has been pointed out by Mr.Pujara, learned advocate.

3.2 Mr.Pujara, learned advocate, would submit that out of 184 vacancies notified, only 168 candidates were appointed and a selection list was prepared on 14.08.2019. A waiting list on the same date was prepared of 17 candidates. The petitioners, three in number, found their names at serial numbers 1, 6 and 17.

3.3 The case of the petitioners is that all the 168 candidates on the selection list were offered appointment but several candidates did not join. Inviting the attention of the Court to the conditions in the advertisement, Mr.Pujara, learned advocate, would submit that the advertisement itself i.e. Clause-7, made it clear that the Centralized Waiting List would be operated as per the Government Resolution dated 10.08.2016. As per Clause-6 of the Government Resolution, if a candidate of the select list given appointment does not join duty or leaves the service within one year of joining, then the vacancies arising due to such reasons have to be filled up by candidates of the concerned category from the wait list. The case of the petitioners, therefore, is that the petitioners should have been given appointments on the vacancies of general category or of S.C and SEBC category.

3.4 Relying on Clause-7(b) of the advertisement, Mr.Pujara, learned advocate, would submit that as per the Clause, the number of candidates to be included in the Select List shall be equal to the number of vacancies notified. Despite this, though the advertisement was for 184 candidates, the Select List was only of 168 candidates, and therefore, not in accordance with Clause-7(b) of the advertisement. In a tabulated form, Mr.Pujara, learned advocate, would point out that seven candidates had resigned within one year from the date of the selection and therefore the petitioners automatically ought to have been appointed from the Wait List which was in operation for a period of one year counting 14.08.2019 as the relevant date. As far as making submissions for each petitioner is concerned, Mr.Pujara, learned advocate, would submit as under:

(A) For petitioner No.1, it was the case of Mr.Pujara, learned advocate, that he had obtained 65.82 marks and was at serial number 1 on the waiting list. He had the highest merit, therefore, if any vacancy in the general category or the S.C category had to be filled in, the petitioner No.1 was entitled for appointment. He would submit that a candidate at serial no.12 of the wait list, one Sanjaykumar Badhabhai Chavda, of S.C category with lower merit of 63.88 marks had been appointed. The candidate, Shri Sanjaykumar Chavda, is given posting at Kheda which was not one of the three choices given by him. Mr.Pujara, learned advocate, would submit that even on the basis of merit position o