Recruitment processes must adhere to consistent criteria as set in advertisements, and allegations of irregularities must be substantiated with evidence.

JUDGMENT :

NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.R.G.Chaudhary appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Vikas Nair appearing on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2, learned advocate Mr.P.R.Nanavaty appearing on behalf of respondents no.15, 17, 18, 20 and 23, learned advocate Mr.Sahil Shah appearing on behalf of respondent no.6, learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas with learned advocate Ms.Prachi Upadhya appearing on behalf of respondents no. 5, 8, 19 and 22, learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya appearing on behalf of respondent no.11 and learned advocate Ms.Himanshi Balodi for learned advocate Mr.Anand Sharma appearing on behalf of respondents no.3, 7, 10, 12, 13 and 14. 2. The present petition had been preferred in the year 2007 inter alia challenging orders dated 20.12.2006 and 11.01.2007 as being arbitrary, illegal etc. and in defiance of an order passed by a learned Coordinate Bench in the first round of litigation being Special Civil Application No.17627/2006 and allied matters.

2.1. It would appear that when the petition had been taken up for the first time, the counsel appearing for the District Judge, Mehsana had submitted to this Court that because of some misconception, the District Judge did not pass the order and whereas, it was submitted that appropriate order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioner and whereas, for such an action, time was granted. The same being recorded in order of this Court dated 23.11.2007.

2.2. It would appear that pursuant to the said undertaking, the then Principal District Judge, Mehsana had passed an order dated 07.12.2007 in respect of representation preferred by the petitioners and whereas, vide the above referred order, the representations had been directed to be filed as no substance was found therein. At the outset, it requires to be mentioned here that order dated 07.12.2007 being the impugned order, has not been challenged in the present petition at all.

2.3. Be that as it may, it would appear that the entire petition is completely misconceived inasmuch as while there appears to be two different advertisements issued by the establishment of the District Court, Mehsana for the post of Assistant (Junior Clerk) and whereas, the petitioner has two different sets of grievances as regards both the selection processes and whereas, unfortunately, it appears that both the set of grievances have been mixed up in the present petition, leading to the facts being so much jumbled up that this Court at its wits’ end to segregate the facts and grievance of the petitioner as relatable to the different sets of selection process. As it is, it would appear from the petition that reference is made only to the earlier advertisement, whereas grounds are relatable to the later advertisement.

3. To clarify, it appears that the District Court, Mehsana had published its first advertisement vide outward no.B.4/24/Admin/1431/2004 in a daily news paper calling for applications to reach the establishment of the District Court by the 31.08.2004. The criteria prescribed being S.S.C. or equivalent and having speed of 30 words per minute in English and 25 words per minute in Gujarati language and having knowledge of computer. The age criteria was between 18 to 25.

3.1. From the documents, this Court has gathered that a total of 116 candidates had been selected in the said selection process and whereas, the list had been sent for approval to the High Court and whereas, vide a communication