LOKESH KATARA AND ANR.versusHONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

                          [2016] 9 S.C.R. 983


                   LOKESH KATARA AND ANR.                                   A
                                   v.
             HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
                (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 758 of2016)
                       DECEMBER 14, 2016                                    B
       [T. S. THAKUR, CJI, DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
                 AND L. NAGESWARA RAO; JJ.]
       Alternative remedy - Writ Petition u/Art. 32 .:.. Writ petitioners _
working as Systems Officers and Systems Assistants, on contractual
basis, challenged advertisement by respondent-High Court inviting ·C
applications for these posts - Also sought mandamus for
incorporating a provision in the recruitment rules for absorption of
petitioners and similarly placed persons - Held: Writ petition
dismissed since the petitioners have a remedy available of moving
the High Court on the judicial side u/Art. 226 - Constitution of            D-
India - Arts.32 and 226.
     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
758of2016.
      Under Article 32 of the Constitution ofindia.
     S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Prateek Dhir and              E
Mis Lawyer S. Knit & Co., Advocates, for the appearing parties.
      The following Order of the Court was delivered by
      DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. These proceedings have
been instituted under Article 32 of the Constitution by two petitioners     F
who are stated to be working as Systems Officers and Systems
Assistants since 2009 on a contractual basis. The petitioners state
that Systems Officers and Systems Assistants were engaged in the
High Court and the district courts in the State of Gujarat in consoni\nce
with the National Policy and Action Plan prepared by the E-
Committee. In 2013, the Government of Gujarat sanctioned pos!s of           G
Systems Officers and Systems Assistants in the regular cadre. An
amendment was made to the recruitment rules in 2015 for filling up
these posts by direct recruitment. The existing Systems Officers and
Systems Assistants working in various district courts submitted a
                                                                            H
                                   983
984             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 9 S.C.R.


A     representation seeking their absorption. An online skill test was conducted.
      Another representation was submitted on 16 March 2016. However,
      the representation for absorption was rejected on 26 May 2016. On 9
      September 2016 an advertisement was published by the Registrar
      (Recruitment and Finance) inviting applications for thirty posts of
      Systems Officers and thirty posts of Systems Assistants. The Writ
B
      Petition has been inst~tuted seeking to challenge the advertisement
      issued by the High Court and for a mandamus for incorporating a
      provision in the recruitment rules for the absorption of the petitioners
      and similarly placed persons.
             2. We are not inclined to entertain a Writ Petition under Article 32
 c    of the Constitution. The petitioners have a remedy available of moving
      the High Court on the judicial side under Article 226 of the Constitution.
      In the circumstances, while leaving it open to the petitioners to institute
      appropriate proceedings as they may be advised, we decline to entertain
      this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
D           3. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.


         Divya Pandey                                         Writ Petition dismissed.