JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. The appellants are the original petitioner Nos. 4 and 6, who have preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenging the oral judgment dated 29.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition.

2. Facts as emerged from the records of the above captioned petition are briefly summarized as under:

2.1 The above captioned writ petition was preferred by six petitioners, who were originally appointed as Clerk except the petitioner No. 3, who was appointed as Typist in the district other than Mehsana or Patan districts. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed in Ahmedabad district, the petitioner No. 2 was appointed in Panchmahals district, the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed in Kutch district, whereas the petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 were appointed in Kheda district.

2.2 It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed more than 15 years back of filing of the captioned writ petition.

2.3 The State Government issued Notification dated 02.04.1997, which had constituted a new district Patan by carving areas of Mehsana and Banaskantha districts. The State Government passed an order dated 26.11.1998 laying down criteria for allocation and absorption of staff, procedure thereof, conditions of service of such employees for newly constituted districts. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of Para 2(b)(1) of the aforesaid order, the petitioners were required to be given their seniority from their initial date of appointment as Clerk in the respective districts. Thus, their original seniority was required to be maintained by treating it as continuous officiation in the Revenue Department.

2.4 The petitioners have further relied upon a letter dated 19.05.1998, wherein the State Government had informed the Collector of the respective districts to provide options to such employees working in other districts for the appointment/absorption in Patan district. The petitioners therefore, contended that they had opted for Patan district under the belief that their seniority would be maintained on the basis of continuous officiation by treating their earlier service of native district and had accordingly exercised their option for Patan district. It is the case of the petitioners that they have joined newly constituted district Patan in the months of December, 1998 and January, 1999.

2.5 To their utter surprise by letter dated 19.01.1999, the Revenue Department instructed the Collector, district Patan to give effect of seniority from the date of joining of their duties in Patan district. By such a letter, the respondent Authorities had further clarified that such employees were required to tender their consent letters and if the employees failed to give their consent letter, then they were required to be restored back to their native district. It is the case of the petitioners that such consent letters were immediately called for on the same date i.e. 19.01.1999. In such circumstances, the petitioners left with no option, without any reasonable time given, were constrained to submit their consent letters for joining new district Patan.

2.6 Thereafter, the provisional list of Deputy Mamlatdar was circulated and the objections were invited against such a provisional list. In response to such a provisional list, the petitioners raised objections contending that their seniority should be fixed taking into account their earlier service in earlier districts. However, such objections were not entertained and the final seniority list of Deputy Mamlatdar came to be notified on 01.01.2002 reflecting the position of the petitioners. The petitioners’ name appeared at Sr. No. 83 to 88 in the final seniority list by taking into consideration the date of joining new district Patan.

2.7 Hence, the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court by way of captioned petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Ind