S. D. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) ). This group of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise common questions of law and facts and is directed against more or less common order of termination of services of petitioners by order dated 25-9-93 passed by the Dist. Primary Education Officer. By interim order passed by the Ld. single Judge while entertaining these petitions the petitioners have continued in service despite order of termination under challenge. As common questions of law and facts arise in this group of petitions same were heard together and are now being disposed of by this common judgment ( 2 ) ). In order of appreciate the rival submissions made by the parties in their proper perspective relevant facts giving rise to this group of petition are stated hereunder: (i) The Sabarkantha District Panchayat Education Committee issued public advertisement dated 10 through the District Primary Education Officer advertising the vacant posts of Primary Teachers in the Primary Schools under the control of District Education Committee Sabarkantha. Such advertise ment stipulated the qualifications so expected of the candidate age limit as on 1 payscale and other terms and conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant. One of such conditions inter alia stipulated that the selected candidate shall have to report for duty at a post where he is directed to report for duty and he shall have to execute a bond to continuously serve for a period of 3 years failing which to pay an amount of Rs. 10 0 It is also stipulated that such candidate shall have to surrender his original certificates of educational qualifications to the Dist. Primary Education Officer for a period of three years at the time of reporting for duty. (ii) Such advertisement did not specify the number of vacancies in various schools under the control of Dist. Education Committee Sabarkantha. It also did not specify the seats or vacancies reserved for or to be reserved for candidates belonging to SC ST Baxi Panch community or other socially and educationally backward classes as well as physically handicapped candidates. (iii) It appears that in response to such advertisement a large number of candidates applied for the post of Primary Teacher. Letters for interview were issued to such applicants in the month of February 1992 by the Dist. (iii) It appears that in response to such advertisement a large number of candidates applied for the post of Primary Teacher. Letters for interview were issued to such applicants in the month of February 1992 by the Dist. Primary Education Officer requiring such candidates to appear for interview in the last week of February 1992 and 1st week of March 1992. The applicants were required to produce along with their applications all necessary certificates of their educational qualifications and/or certificates certifying their passing of other exams for which additional marks could be given. (iv) At this stage it may be stated that the State of Gujarat through its Education Department issued Circular No. PRE/ 1989/2950/c dated 7-8-89 prescribing guidelines to be followed at the time of recruitment of Primary Teachers. For candidates possessing PTC qualification in such guidelines it is prescribed that marks will be allotted in the following proportion: (a) SSC 35% (b) PTC 55% (e) Spl. Subject 10% (Music Drawing Physical Training 2 Hindi and Sewing) (for possessing certificate or additional qualification in the aforesaid special subjects candidate may get two marks ). (v) It is not disputed that the recruitment of Primary Teachers in the schools run by Panchayats is governed by Gujarat Panchayat Service (Recruitment of Primary Teachers) Rules 1980 which are statutory rules framed under Section 323 of Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 Under these Rules a District Primary Education Staff Selection Committee is to be constituted read with Section 211 of Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 and it is this Committee which has to act as the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee duly constituted after holding requisite interview prepared select-list of candidates in the month of April 1992. (vi) Based on such select-list which was prepared by the Committee constituted under the statutory Rules orders of appointment were issued by the Dist. Primary Education Officer on 16-4-92 to all the petitioners as well as other persons as per their placement in the merit list. In all 442 candidates were appointed based on said select-list. The orders of appointment were printed orders of appointment and reference to such order would be necessary at this stage. Primary Education Officer on 16-4-92 to all the petitioners as well as other persons as per their placement in the merit list. In all 442 candidates were appointed based on said select-list. The orders of appointment were printed orders of appointment and reference to such order would be necessary at this stage. Such orders of appointment which are undisputedly identical in cases of all the petitioners inter alia stipulated that the appointment of the candidate was purely temporary and was liable to be terminated in case vacancies were not sanctioned or approved by the Government. Condition No. 8 clearly require the candidate that on receipt of order of appointment the candidate if he was continuing in service at another place shall tender his resignation shall get his resignation sanctioned and thereafter only he shall report for duly on the specified date and in case of his failure to report for duty the order of appointment shall be treated as cancelled. Condition No. 13 stipullated that the candidate shall have to submit his certificates of educational qualifications age as well as his marks-sheet in original to the office of the Dist. Primary Education Officer within seven days and the same shall he retained by the office for a period of three years. Condition No. 14 stipulated that the candidate shall have to work at least for a period of three years at the place of his appointment and he shall have to compulsorily serve for three years. In case such candidate would desire to leave the job earlier than three years he shall have to deposit in cash amount of Rs. 10 0 and that either he shall deposit Rs. 10 0 in cash within seven days or he shall execute a security bond for the said amount within seven days. (vii) About the terms and conditions of appointment and the fact that the printed orders of appointment were issued to all the 442 candidates no dispute exists before this court. ( 3 ) ). It appears that all the 442 candidates to whom the orders of appointment were issued reported for duty at the place and within time shown in respective order of appointment and complied with the terms and conditions of order of appointment. ( 4 ) ). On 16th February 1993 i. e. within a period of ten months from the order of appointment the Dist. ( 4 ) ). On 16th February 1993 i. e. within a period of ten months from the order of appointment the Dist. Primary Education Officer Sabarkantha District Panchayat issued orders of termination terminating services of approximately 118 persons who joined as teachers inter alia stating in said orders of termination that the appointee has in his application or recruitment referred to additional qualification. It is further stated in said order of termination that such candidate was entitled to specified number of marks only while the Staff Selection Committee has allotted more marks (2/4 more marks ). It is further stated that large-scale complaints were received alleging irregularities and illegalities in recruitment/appointment of Primary Teachers and therefore by resolution dated 2 July 1992 passed by the General Board of the Dist. Panchayat investigation was entrusted to the President of Sabarkantha Dist. Panchayat who has on private investigation found that additional marks allotted to the appointees were wrongly allotted. It was further stated in such order of termination that the appointee was not entitled to such additional marks which were given and that allotment of such additional marks was contrary to the Govt. Circular dated 7-8-89 and that therefore in the case of appointment irregulatiry illegality and/or fraud was committed and that therefore appointment was wrongly given. It was further stated in such order of termination that after such additional marks were excluded the appointee was not entitled to be appointed and that therefore the appointment was liable to be cancelled and was therefore terminated with immediate effect. ( 5 ) ). Orders of termination of this nature gave rise to institution of large number of petitions being SCA No. 1415/93 and 98 other matters which came for admissional hearing before C. K. Thakkar J. who by common judgment and order dated 5-4- 93 after hearing the respondents and the Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioners partly allowed the said group of petitions. The impugned orders of termination was quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to continue the petitioners in service as if the impugned orders were not passed against them. Counsel appearing for the petitioners partly allowed the said group of petitions. The impugned orders of termination was quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to continue the petitioners in service as if the impugned orders were not passed against them. The respondents were further directed that the orders of termination issued by them shall be treated as show-cause notices and the petitioners were directed to file their affidavits-in-reply reply and/or explanations and to produce evidence documentary or other material for consideration of the authority and thereafter respondents were directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. ( 6 ) ). It appears that consistent with the directions issued by C. K. Thakkar J. all the petitioners and other similarly situated employees whose services were terminated filed their replies/ explanations treating the earlier impugned termination orders as showcause notice within stipulated time and thereafter the respondent authorities have passed impugned order of termination dated 25-9-93 which are under challenge in this group of petitions. The impugned orders of termination against the petitioners are more or less identical and if the gist of the order is referred to at this stage it would help the court in appreciating the real points on which attention is required to be focussed. In most of the cases in the impugned orders of termination it is stated that 2/4 additional marks were included while allotting marks initially for additional qualifications. The candidate has either obtained such additional qualification subsequently or has not produced the original certificate of additional qualifications initially and therefore the additional marks were wrongly included and appointments given on the basis of such additional marks was liable to be terminated. The orders recite that therefore their appointments were not proper and legal (Vyajbi and Kaidasar) . ( 7 ) ). When this group of petitions was initially notified before this court after hearing the petitioners as well as the respondents it was felt that the main objection on behalf of the respondents was that the then Selection Committee committed illegalities/irregularities in allotting additional marks for additional qualifications. ( 7 ) ). When this group of petitions was initially notified before this court after hearing the petitioners as well as the respondents it was felt that the main objection on behalf of the respondents was that the then Selection Committee committed illegalities/irregularities in allotting additional marks for additional qualifications. It was felt that if the marks are allotted by the Selection Committee scrupulously as per the Circular issued by the Government dated 7-8-89 and if the marks in the special subjects are allotted on the basis of requisite qualification on the date of interview and if some independent agency is also directed to remain present at the point of time when Selection Committee prepares the merit/ select list then such list would be beyond any dispute or challenge and that the appointing authority shall abide by such select list. Accordingly by my order dated 28-12-1993 a Special Committee was constituted with the consent of all the Advocates and further directions were also stipulated in the said order which are as under: it is agreed that for special subjects where 10 marks are to be allotted the candidates must possess such qualification on the date of interview which in the present group of petitions admittedly took place on 28-2-1992. If the candidates possessed prescribed qualification in any of the special subjects on the date of interview i. e. 28-2-1992 on his producing such original certificate and/or xerox copies thereof with undertaking to get confirmation from appropriate authority before whom he has produced the original certificate within time to be directed by the Committee entitlement of such candidate for allotment of additional marks shall be accepted. ( 8 ) ). Partly in conformity with the directions issued by this court though not within stipulated time the respondent have prepared five separate merit lists i. e. (1) general merit list of all candidates based on the marks obtained by them (totalling to 3474) (ii) separate list of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes (553) (iii) separate list of candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes (62) (iv) candidates belonging to Baxi Panch (665) (v) physically handicapped (108) thus totalling to 4862. ( 9 ) ). These lists strictly speaking cannot be said to be select list but are lists of candidates showing their placement as per marks obtained by them. One comprising of 257 candidates and another comprising of 442 candidates. ( 9 ) ). These lists strictly speaking cannot be said to be select list but are lists of candidates showing their placement as per marks obtained by them. One comprising of 257 candidates and another comprising of 442 candidates. It would be at this stage necessary to clarify the need of preparation of these two merit/ select lists. It is the case of the respondent authorities pleaded for the first time in the affidavit-in-reply in this group of petitions that on the date of advertisement i. e. on 10-4-91 or on the date of interview which is held in the month of February 1992 there was only 257 vacancies in the post of Primary teachers in the schools run by the Sabarkantha Dist. Primary Education Committee and therefore merit/select list of only 257 candidates should have been prepared. As against the aforesaid sanctioned or existing vacancies the earlier Selection Committee has prepared unduly lengthy select list of 442 candidates and therefore on the assumption that there were 442 vacancies the select/merit list came to be operated and 442 candidates were actually appointed though the vacancies were only 257 It is on this factual premise that these two lists are prepared. ( 10 ) ). In the backdrop of aforesaid facts it would be beneficial at this stage to make reference to the stand of the respondents as reflected in the affidavit in-reply in this court by one S. M. Baria Dist Primary Education Officer. This affidavit-in-reply is filed in SCA No. 10184/93 and is ordered to be treated as common affidavit-in-reply in all other petitions and Mr. R. A. Mishra. Ld. Advocate for respondents has. stated before this court that defence of the respondents is common excepting gross individual cases. ( 11 ) ). The depodent of the affidavit-in-reply i. e. Dist Primary Education Officer Sabarkantha has attempted to classify the petitioners into 20 classes or sub-groups. Broadly the petitioners of this group of petitions can be classified as under: (i) The petitioners who were wrongly given 2/4 additional marks though they were not entitled to same firstly because they obtained additional qualification subsequently in point of time or they failed to produce relevant certificate of additional qualification or they did not possess additional qualification at all and yet were allotted additional marks. (ii) The candidates who were not belonging to reserved categories such as SC ST Baxi Panch or Physically handicapped were appointed its such reserved category. (iii) General category candidates appointed on posts meant for reserved category namely SC ST Baxi Panch and Physically handicapped. (a) Having so classified the petitioners in three classes the deponent of the affidavit-in-reply has made reference to reported decision of this court in the case of Hiraben Jivanbhai Chaudhary v. R. C. Raval reported in (1993) (34) GLR 66 and has generally stated that where appointees have obtained appointments in public employment by fraud misrepresentation mistake or doubtful means their appointments can be terminated. The deponent has further extensively referred to the relevant statutory provisions more particularly Section 2 (11) (sic. 211) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act which provides for constitution of Dist. Panchayat Services Selection Committee and to the Rules referred to hereinabove. Reference is made to various Rules and as to how under Rule 11 final list of candidates is to be prepared. It is thereafter that reference is made to Rule 14 which in my opinion both in its unamended form and after its amendment shall have to be set out. Rule 14 as it originally stood without amendment is as under: 14. Appointment of candidates from each select list to be made before next select list is finalised: subject to the availability of vacancies candidates from the select list prepared in May shall be appointed before select list prepared in October next becomes finalised and candidates from select list prepared in October shall be appointed before the select list prepared in May next becomes finalised. The select list prepared in May shall lapse as soon as the select list prepared in October next is finalised and the select list prepared inoctober shall lapse as soon as the select list prepared in May next is finalised. The said Rule admittedly came to be amended and the amended Rule 14 reads as under: rule 14. Appointment of candidates from select list to be made before next select list is finalised: Subject to the availability of vacancies candidates from the select list shall be appointed before the next select list is finalised. The select list shall lapse as such as the next select list is finalised. Appointment of candidates from select list to be made before next select list is finalised: Subject to the availability of vacancies candidates from the select list shall be appointed before the next select list is finalised. The select list shall lapse as such as the next select list is finalised. (b) From reference to the said Rule 14 it becomes clear that under the Old Rule it was stipulated that the select list for the post of Primary Teachers shall be prepared twice in an year one in the month of May and for second time in the month of October. It was then stipulated that candidates from the select list prepared in May shall be appointed before the select list prepared in October next becomes finalised and candidates from select list prepared in October shall be appointed before select list prepared in May becomes finalised. On preparation of one select list the second shall lapse. Though this should have been ideal condition to be practised it was never followed and select lists twice in an year were never prepared. The legislature has therefore amended the Rule and provided that the candidates from the select list shall be appointed before the next select list is finalised. The select list so prepared shall lapse as soon as the next select list is finalised. It is thus clear that under the amendment rules a select list once prepared shall ordinarily continue till the next select list is prepared. At appropriate stage reference to this rule shall assume importance while issuing final directions and modulating the relief. ( 12 ) ). The affidavit-in-reply then refers to ten petitions where the petitioners were given two additional marks though they have not passed examination in any special subjects. It would be appropriate at this stage to clarify that though para 13 of the affidavit-in-reply refers to ten petitions only 9 petitions are intended out of which five petitioners are already allotted two additional marks as per the directions of this court while preparing fresh select list. It is further pointed out that 15 meritorious candidates belonging to ST are left out despite their scoring reasonably good marks. I may at once mention that this court would at this stage clarify that Ld. Advocate for respondents Mr. Mishra has stated that as per Constitutional policy 17% of posts are to be reserved for ST. It is further pointed out that 15 meritorious candidates belonging to ST are left out despite their scoring reasonably good marks. I may at once mention that this court would at this stage clarify that Ld. Advocate for respondents Mr. Mishra has stated that as per Constitutional policy 17% of posts are to be reserved for ST. If vacancies are treated as 257 the post to be reserved for ST would work out to 44 as against which 31 candidates of ST on merit are already appointed. Therefore only 13 posts are yet required to be filled in from out of candidates belonging to ST though the respondents are now stating that 15 meritorious candidates of ST are yet to be appointed. ( 13 ) ). In this connection it is averred in the affidavit-in-reply that the petitioners of Spl. C. A. Nos. 10180 10228 10231 10232 10234 10236 10245 10248 10253 10281 10295 10306 10485 10513 10533 10534 10537 and 12053 all of 1993 are appointed on 15 posts meant for ST candidates and therefore they are required to be terminated. No system of roster is being maintained. It is very difficult to state as to how these petitioners of these petitions only can be said to have been appointed on posts reserved for ST. When Mr. Mishra Ld. Advocate for respondents was confronted with this fact situation he fairly conceded that it is not possible to specify those petitioners as candidates appointed on the vacancies meant for ST candidates. He however stated that in fact 15 posts are yet to be filled from amongst candidates belonging to ST. ( 14 ) ). Another objection stated in the affidavit-in-reply is that meritorious a candidates belonging to Baxi Panch community are left out and those who are less meritorious were appointed. In this connection reference is made to petitioners of 8 petitions being Spl. C. A. Nos. 10113 10237 10248 10250 10305 10310 10558 and 10559 all of 1993. At Annexure R-3 the respondents have produced list of Baxi Panch community candidates who ought to have been appointed and who are left out. It may be stated that reservation for candidates belonging to Baxi Panch community is 10%. On vacancies being taken as 257 25 candidates ought to have been appointed from Baxi Panch community as against which 9 candidates are appointed. It may be stated that reservation for candidates belonging to Baxi Panch community is 10%. On vacancies being taken as 257 25 candidates ought to have been appointed from Baxi Panch community as against which 9 candidates are appointed. 16 candidates are therefore required to he appointed from Baxi Panch community. It is further pointed out that the petitioners of Spl. C. A. Nos. 10187 and 10229 of 1993 are appointed as candidates belonging to Baxi Panch Community while in fact they did not belong to Baxi Panch community. I may at this stage mention that it is the case of the petitioners that they have also produced along with petition certificates issued by the competent authority showing that they belong to Baxi Panch community and that such certificates are also produced before the respondents. In the absence of any other material it is not possible for this court to record any finding as this would involve determination of disputed questions of facts. ( 15 ) ). It is further submitted that thepetitioners of SCA No. 10157/93 and 10184 10185 10186 10222 10235 10240 10241 10242 10243 10251 10483 and 10521 of 1993 are wrongly given two additional marks for passing special examination and thereby candidates possessing higher marks are left out. With respect to individual cases it is thereafter pointed out as to how they are not entitled to additional marks and yet additional marks are given to them and as to how certificates of passing examination on which they have relied upon could not have been relied upon. The court shall deal with such individual cases while finally deciding the entitlement of each petitioner to relief prayed for. ( 16 ) ). As regards candidates belonging to SC it is stated that reservation is 996 and therefore 23 candidates ought to have been appointed. As against said requirement in fact 31 persons belonging to SC are appointed and therefore more are appointed in the reserved category of SC. For physically handicapped persons the reservation is 4 and therefore 10 posts were required to be filled in as against which t4 persons belonging to this category of physically handicapped persons are appointed. In this category also more number of persons are appointed. (a) Reservation worked out hereinabove is worked out on the basis of 257 vacancies. If the vacancies are taken as 442 obviously the reservation would increase. In this category also more number of persons are appointed. (a) Reservation worked out hereinabove is worked out on the basis of 257 vacancies. If the vacancies are taken as 442 obviously the reservation would increase. In case of ST candidates it would work out to 74 candidates for Baxi Panch candidates it would work out to 44 candidates and for physically handicapped persons it would work out to 18 candidates. The total therefore would work out to 176 persons to be appointed as against reserved category. It is also required to be mentioned at this stage that on the basis of 257 vacancies in fact 102 seats would have gone to the candidates of reserved category while the balance seats would have gone to candidate of general category. As against 102 vacancies of reserved category 91 candidates of reserved category are appointed. 8 in the category of SC and 4 in the category of Physically Handicapped persons are in excess than required reservation while 13 in ST and 16 in Baxi Panch community are less in number than the quota reserved. On the basis of 257 vacancies 155 vacancies would go to the candidates of general category as against which actually 193 candidates of general category were appointed and are working i. e. 38 candidates of general category more in number than seats available for them are working. ( 17 ) ). Aforesaid is the gist of defence put forth by the respondents in their affidavitin-reply. From the aforesaid affidavit-in reply it is very difficult to make out as to how it can be said that the petitioners of this group of petitions have perpetrated any fraud or misrepresentation or have obtained employment by any misconduct or irregularity at their end which would vitiate their appointment from inception. Neither from the initial order of termination which was the subject-matter of challenge before C. K. Thakkar J. and which was ordered to be treated as showcause notice by the learned single Judge nor from the impugned orders of termination passed against the present petitioners it can be said that the petitioners were guilty of prepetrating any fraud upon the respondents. Neither suggestio falsi nor suppressio veri is attributed to any petitioner. It is not alleged that any one has produced fake or fabricated marks-sheet or certificate. Neither suggestio falsi nor suppressio veri is attributed to any petitioner. It is not alleged that any one has produced fake or fabricated marks-sheet or certificate. It is also not alleged that anyone has impersonated at interview It is also not alleged that totally false and fabricated certificates or testimonials were produced because of which appointment was secured. In fact the respondents have failed to make out ground of fraud against any of the petitioners nor is such ground specifically made out or pleaded in the affidavit-in-reply. ( 18 ) ). Are petitioners or any one of them said to be guilty of misrepresentation ? The petitioners have produced certificates or marks-sheets of examinations they have passed. Whether the petitioners were entitled to additional two marks for passing examination in special subjects or not was the question which was the centre point of controversy between the petitioners on one hand and the respondents on the other hand. What was the relevant date on which the candidate must possess such qualification was the question that was argued at length before this court initially. At that point of time it was submitted before the court by the respondents that by giving 2/4/6 additional marks for passing examination in special subjects two candidates who were not entitled to such additional marks the Selection Committee has manoeuvred the select list and has thereby wrongly included large number of candidates who were not entitled to allotment of additional marks and therefore not entitled to be included in the select list. In order to see that wrong allotment of additional marks for passing examination in special subjects do not result into exclusion of meritorious candidate this court with the consent of learned Advocates for parties passed interim order on 28-12-1993 The order is self explanatory At that time it was felt both by the petitioners as well as respondents a that if the marks are allotted by the Selection Committee scrupulously as per circular dated 7-8-89 and if marks in the special subjects are allotted on the basis of possession of requisite qualification on the date of interview and if same independent agency is also directed to remain present at a point of time when the select is prepared preparation of such select-list would be beyond dispute and/or challenge and that the petitioners as well as respondents shall abide by such select list. It was in that situation that a special committee was constituted by this court and such committee was directed to prepare the select list afresh. The committee was directed that for passing examination special subjects where two marks per examination were to be allotted must be allotted but the candidate must possess such qualification on the date of interview which in the present group of petitions admittedly took place on 28-2- 92. If the candidate possessed prescribed qualification in any of the special subjects on 28-2-92 on his producing such original certificate and/or xerox copies thereof with undertaking to get confirmed from appropriate authority before whom he has produced the original certificate within time to be stipulated by the committee entitlement of such candidate for allotment of additional marks was to be accepted. Accordingly special committee has undertaken the exercise and has produced the fresh select list before this court. As pointed out hereinabove the committee has in all prepared 5 separate lists. From out of 74 petitioners who instituted petitions in this court four petitioners were falling within the merit list because of addition of two additional marks and such petitions being SCA Nos. 10295 10246 10228 and 10237 or 1993 were allowed and with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties orders of termination passed against those petitioners were directed to be quashed and set aside. This court is now left with balance 70 matters where because of orders of stay granted by K. G. Shah J. the petitioners are continued in service and are as on date continuously working from the date of their appointment as primary teachers in the primary schools run by Sabarkantha Dist. Primary Education Committee. ( 19 ) ). Before this court would proceed to set out and consider legal submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties it would be necessary to clarify the exact number of vacancies available with the respondents for appointing primary teachers. It is the case of the respondents that on the date of interview i. e. on 28-2-1992 there were 257 vacancies in the post of primary teachers in the schools under the management of respondents. In subsequent years the vacancies have increased to 442 and in fact from the merit list prepared 442 candidates were appointed on the post of primary teachers and were posted of various primary schools under the management of respondents. In subsequent years the vacancies have increased to 442 and in fact from the merit list prepared 442 candidates were appointed on the post of primary teachers and were posted of various primary schools under the management of respondents. These 442 primary teachers inter alia include present 70 petitioners who were initially appointed as primary teachers and whose services are terminated by impugned orders of termination and who are now working as primary teachers under the orders of slay granted by K. G. Shah J. In the running year around 229 further vacancies have arisen which are not the subject-matter of any controversy before this court and which are yet to be filled in by the respondents by following regular process of selection. For the purpose of these petitions therefore it is agreed between the parties that the court may proceed to decide the rival submissions on the basis that vacancies are required to be filled from the select list prepared by the committee. It also becomes clear that despite directions issued by this Court for preparation of fresh select-list only 4 petitioners have benefited who came within the zone of consideration and in whose cases the orders of termination wore set aside and their appointments were regularised. The present petitioners are those who even after exercise of preparation of fresh select-list fell beyond 442 and whose services are sought to he terminated by the impugned orders of termination. Submissions: 21 M/s Ketty A. Mehta K. B. Pujara P. S. Patel J. V. Japi Ajit Padival and Anant Dave Ld. Advocates for petitioners have made following submissions for the consideration of this court: (i) If 442 vacancies in the post of primary teachers are taken into account from the fresh select list prepared pursuant to the directions of this court persons should be appointed from such list. Under the amended Rules select list so prepared shall lapse only on the preparation of new select list and since no new select list is prepared the select list prepared under the directions of this court shall be directed to be operated and the vacancies which have arisen and are in the vicinity of 229 should be directed to be filled in from amongst the candidates already selected in the select list prepared pursuant to the directions of this court. (ii) Some of the candidates who were within the select list of 442 have not responded to the order of appointment and have joined services elsewhere and such posts should be made available to the petitioners or to the persons whose names appeared beyond 442 by operating such merit list further. (iii) Those candidates whose names appeared beyond 442 and who were yet to be appointed are not liable to be as terminated by the respondents as the respondents are estopped by principles of promissory estoppel because - (a) No allegation of fraud misrepresentation mistake corruption or nepotism is made individually against any petitioners but they are sought to be terminated on the ground that those incharge of recruitment and selection did not properly verify and counted the vacancies meant for reserved category such as SC ST Baxi Panch etc. and did not invite applications for such reserved category specifically in the advertisement and therefore in order to effect such reservation for such category persons the petitioners who are already selected and/ or working on the post cannot be terminated by pushing the petitioners down in the merit list and placing candidates of reserved category above the petitioners. (b) Various irregularities alleged to have been committed in allotment of 2 4 or 6 additional marks for passing examination in special subjects are not attributed to the petitioners but are in fact attributable to the members of the Selection Committee and/or those who were in the charge of process of selection. It is not pointed out that any of the petitioners was related to any of the members of the Committee or any of the petitioners has brought any pressure or influence. (c) On the relevant date namely the date of interview the petitioners might have not qualified for additional 2 marks. Many of the petitioners might have obtained qualification in special subjects and have become entitled to addition of additional marks in special subjects subsequently i. e. after 28-2-92 and therefore also they are required to be regularised. The alleged irregularity if there was any was solely attributable to the members of the Committee and not to the petitioners in any of the petitions. The alleged irregularity if there was any was solely attributable to the members of the Committee and not to the petitioners in any of the petitions. (d) In the affidavit-in-reply as well as in the course of oral submission before this court it was admitted by the respondents that irregularity was committed by the members of the Selection Committee who gave additional marks for passing examination in special subjects to those candidates who were not entitled to such additional marks. For the irregularity or mistake on the part of the respondents or its officers the petitioners who are already appointed should not be penalised. (e) Number of petitioners have pursuant to the orders of appointment received from the respondents and consistent with the instructions contained in such orders of appointment resigned from their places of service have reported for duty at schools under the management of the respondents and have executed a bond of Rs. 10 0 effective for a period of three years and having thus acted to their detriment they have already lost their services where they were serving and/or now sought to be terminated for which the respondents should be estoppted. (f) Number of petitioners have applied to primary schools in other districts. They had received interview calls from said districts but since original certificates were tendered to the respondents and were stipulated to be kept by the respondents for three years they could not get such original certificates and testimonials back from the respondents which resulted into their non-appearance in response to the interview calls which in turn resulted into losing opportunity of job. Some of the petitioners had also received orders of appointment from other districts but they had preferred to join the respondents and they are now sought to be terminated they having acted to their detriment by not joining at other schools respondents should be estopped from terminating the services of such petitioners. ( 20 ) ). In response to the aforesaid submission made by the learned Advocates for petitioners Mr. R. A. Mishra IA. Advocate for respondents and Mr. Amit Panchal Ld. AGP as well as Mehul Rathod Ld. ( 20 ) ). In response to the aforesaid submission made by the learned Advocates for petitioners Mr. R. A. Mishra IA. Advocate for respondents and Mr. Amit Panchal Ld. AGP as well as Mehul Rathod Ld. AGP appearing for respondents submitted that since gross irregularities were committed initially by the Selection Committee in preparation of select-list and since additional marks for passing special examination were allotted to the candidates who were not otherwise eligible for such additional marks and since special reservation was made for persons belonging to reserved category such as SC ST Baxi Panch etc. and since exact number of vacancies were not notified for which the select-list was prepared the entire select-list then prepared by the Commitee was found to be illegal irregular and vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. In fact by a special resolution dated July 9 1992 the President of Sabarkantha District Panchayat was authorised to enquire into alleged irregularities committed in the appointment of primary teachers who in his turn addressed letter dated August 6 1992 to Dist. Primary Education Officer calling upon him to submit report to him about the alleged irregularities committed in appointment of primary teachers. He required the Dist. Primary Education Officer to make enquiries on various issues which were specified being 36 in number and on such 36 items report of the Dist. Primary Education Officer was invited. Most of the queries or items of enquiry relate to entitlement to 2 4 and/ or 6 additional marks for passing examination in special subjects date on which such qualification should be possessed the way in which the interview letters were issued how the candidates appeared even in the absence of receipt of interview letters some corrections or interpolations in the select-list non allotment of marks to persons who have already passed examination in special subjects allotment of two additional marks to persons who have not passed examination in special subjects etc. On such enquiry being made by the Dist. Primary Education Officer he has submitted a report which appears to be the basis for initiating action and for terminating the services of the petitioners initially. From various items on which the Dist. Primary Education Officer was required to make enquiry and from the report submitted by him it becomes clear that no fraud is alleged or attributed against any individual petitioner or class of teachers. From various items on which the Dist. Primary Education Officer was required to make enquiry and from the report submitted by him it becomes clear that no fraud is alleged or attributed against any individual petitioner or class of teachers. It is also not alleged that any petitioner is guilty of misrepresentation or that he has falsely claimed addition of two marks. In fact it is found that the irregularities were committed by those who were in charge of process of selection. It is stated to the court that one Mr. V. N. Deshmukh who was then working as Dist. Primary Education Officer was suspended and is at present under suspension pending enquiry. It is also submitted before the court that disciplinary proceedings are initiated against 14 other employees which are pending for committing irregularities in preparation of the select-list. Mr. R. A. Mishra therefore submitted before this court that when irregularities of such grave nature are detected and found be the Dist. Panchayat the entire select-list should be treated as vitiated and the respondents should be permitted to terminate the services of the petitioners. However it is not disputed before this court that excepting the petitioners before this court other candidates selected and included in the select list are already continued in service and the Panchayat has not decided to terminate the services of such teachers. It is therefore not a case where the Panchayat would like this Court to invalidate the entire select list prepared by the Select Committee in the year 1992 The respondents would like this court to operate the very select list or the fresh select list which is prepared pursuant to the directions of this court but they would like the selection of the present petitioners to be invalidated as in their submission said selection is irregular. It is further submitted by Mr. R. A. Mishra Ld. Advocate for respondents that from the large scale irregularities noticed at least in allotment of additional marks to candidates who were not eligible for allotment of additional marks a reasonable (rather rash) inference should be drawn by this Court that the concerned candidates must have influenced the members of the committee or the members of the committee must have noted in collusion with such candidates. It must also be mentioned that the learned Counsel also initially contended that advertisement issued on 10-4-1991 by the then Primary Education Officer was bad in law as it was in contravention of statutory rules and therefore the entire selection is bad. When he was confronted with the consequence of such declaration in case his submission was accepted he submitted that the authorities would not like the entire process of selection and the appointment made pursuant thereto be vitiated. (This special emphasis is supplied to bring to the surface the inherent contradictions in the defence put forth by respondents.) . ( 21 ) ). Lastly he submitted that the fresh selection list which is prepared by the respondent-authorities consistent with the directions issued by this Court should be permitted to be operated. Till 442 vacancies are filled in from the fresh list the petitioners who are far below in the merit list now prepared should not be imposed upon the respondents as their initial appointment itself was irregular. ( 22 ) ). Before this Court may proceed to consider the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioners seriatim it would be necessary to refer to and deal with the two objections put forth by the respondents. One submission of the respondents is that very advertisement dated 10 issued by the Dist. Primary Education Officer was illegal and in breach of statutory rules. If accepted such submission would be (sic.) result into vitiating the entire process of selection. Second objection on the ground that some irregularities were committed by the then Dist. Pry. Edn. Officer and/or his subordinate staff (i) in allotting additional marks for passing examination in special subjects (ii) in issuing letters of interview (iii) in interviewing candidates in absence of letters of interview (iv) in correcting or erasing and rewriting marks already allotted (v) in not reserving adequate number of posts for candidates of reserved category (vi) and in not determining in advance number of vacancies to be filled in if accepted must result into vitiating the entire process of selection and ultimate invalidation of the select list. The respondent-authorities did not want and did not contend that entire process of selection should be invalidated. They do not want that all the persons who were appointed pursuant to such process of selection should be terminated. The respondent-authorities did not want and did not contend that entire process of selection should be invalidated. They do not want that all the persons who were appointed pursuant to such process of selection should be terminated. Their ultimate objection is limited to the cases of petitioners who according to them were not entitled to allotment of additional marks for passing examination in special subject and who were allotted additional marks. They were therefore less meritorious submits the respondents and therefore their services are liable to be terminated. In the context of this submission of the respondents reference need be made at this stage to the decision of the Supreme Court on which reliance is placed by Mr. R. A. Mishra Ld. Advocate for respondents. In the case of Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh and Ors. reported in AIR AIR 1993 SC 796 the Apex Court was dealing with the validity of administrative action of Chandigarh Administration in cancelling the selectlist of candidates for appointment as Conductors in the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking prepared by the Selection Committee. The Central Administrative Tribunal interfered with such administrative action on the ground that said action was not taken after affording opportunity of hearing to the members of the concerned Selection Board and therefore it set aside the order of Chandigarh Administration. In appeal the Supreme Court held that affording of opportunity of hearing to the members of the Selection Board before cancelling the dubious select-list of candidates for appointment to civil posts prepared by Selection Board is not and cannot be a requirement of either law or any principle of natural justice. It is so for the reason that no member of the Selection Board acquires any vested right or interest in sustaining a select list prepared by the Selection Board. Moreover there is no personal right or interest of a member of a Selection Board which could be adversely affected by the administration cancelling a select-list of candidates. In the context of candidates already selected the Apex Court held that it select list is prepared in unfair and injudicious manner it could always be cancelled. The selectees neither have right of appointment unless so provided by Rules nor right of hearing where cancellation is for bona fide and valid reasons. In the context of candidates already selected the Apex Court held that it select list is prepared in unfair and injudicious manner it could always be cancelled. The selectees neither have right of appointment unless so provided by Rules nor right of hearing where cancellation is for bona fide and valid reasons. In the case before the Supreme Court the Chandigarh Administration received a complaint about unfair and injudicious manner in which the selectlist of candidates was prepared by the Selection Board. It found those complaints to be well founded on an enquiry conducted in that regard. It therefore decided to cancel such dubious select-list. The Apex Court held that such an action was unsustainable as the select was found to have been prepared in an unfair and injudicious manner. The selection Board either inflated the marks to push up the candidates who had got poor marks for their educational qualifications or deflated the marks to pull down the candidates who had got high marks for their educational qualifications. The selection Board did not adopt common eligibility criteria for all candidates. The cancellation of selectlist in such circumstances was found to be permissible and it was held that even selected candidates have no right of being heard. ( 23 ) ). In the aforesaid fact situation the course of action adopted by the administration was the only permissible course. If on the ground of large scale irregularities allegedly committed by the Selection Board in entire select list is to be cancelled such course of action in the context of irregularities may be upheld. However in the facts before this court the respondent-authorities do not want to set at naught the entire process of selection. They do not want to cancel the entire select list. They do not want to affect those meritorious candidates who were already appointed pursuant to their selection. They only want to confine their course of action vis-a-vis those candidates to whom additional marks for passing examination in special subjects were wrongly allotted. Though it is orally contended by them that large number of meritorious candidates though applied were not at all called for interview and were therefore excluded from consideration the said ground is not pressed into service for cancellation of the select list. Though it is orally contended by them that large number of meritorious candidates though applied were not at all called for interview and were therefore excluded from consideration the said ground is not pressed into service for cancellation of the select list. Therefore because of the stand of the respondent-authorities before this court it is not possible for this court to hold that the select list prepared by the Selection Committee was unfair or injudicious and that it is vitiated as a whole. The select list prepared by the committee shall have to he operated partially and the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in fact does not support the respondents because they themselves having taken up the stand that the entire select list is not vitiated. They want to defend the select list. vis-a-vis those meritorious candidates who are already appointed but they want to challenge it vis-a-vis the candidates like petitioners to whom additional marks for passing examination in special subjects were allegedly allotted by the Selection Committee. ( 24 ) ). In the case of Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in 1994 (4) SCC 165 the Apex Court was dealing with the process of selection of Taxation Inspectors by subordinate Selection Board. Serious allegations were made by the appellants before the Apex Court alleging selection to be vitiated by fraud nepotism favouritism and arbitrariness. In view of serious allegations made by (sic.) the Supreme Court referred the matter to CBI for investigation. Report submitted by the CBI revealed acts of favouritism selection without interview and also on the basis of fake or ghost interviews tampering with final records fabrication of documents forgery etc. The Apex Court thereupon found that since entire process of selection was vitiated by fraud nepotism favouritism and arbitrariness it was liable to be set aside and persons selected should have been even asked to repay the salary and perks received by them. However on sympathetic consideration court held that such selected candidates will cease to have right to go to the offce and it further directed fresh selection to be undertaken. However on sympathetic consideration court held that such selected candidates will cease to have right to go to the offce and it further directed fresh selection to be undertaken. It is undoubtedly true that when illegalities/irregularities of very grave nature of fraud nepotism or favouritism in the process of selection for the post of public employment are stated to be the ground for setting aside the process of selection the court would view the matter very seriously and would take up serious stance of interference so as not to permit the executive to set at naught the very process of selection so as to ensure compliance with the guarantee of equal fair and just opportunity to all eligible candidates. In fact perpetuation of such fraud irregularity and illegality must shock the conscience of the court. In the case before this court however the respondent-authorities allege and attribute gross irregularities on the part of Chairman of Selection Committee and subordinate staff of the office. They do not attribute any specific fraud to any specific candidate nor are they in a position to attribute the charges of x favouritism corruption nepotism to the candidates. The sole ground which is pressed into service is wrong allotment of additional marks by the selection committee to the petitioners for special subjects. It is their case that in case of petitioners they were not entitled to allotment of additional marks while in fact the Selection Committee has allotted such additional marks. It is even as per respondents not a case where entire selection is stinking conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit and they do not want the entire selection to be set aside. Their only grievance is against the petitioners. It is required to be examined as to whether the charges of fraud misrepresentation corruption nepotism or favouritism are at all made out against the petitioners except in some exceptional cases where the word Bhrashtacharis used in the order of termination or in the show-cause notice. The earlier order of termination which is permitted to be treated as show-cause notice and the impugned order of termination attribute gar reeti irregularity to all petitioners committed particularly in getting additional marks. The case of the petitioners is that they have passed the examination in special subjects though on the date of interview they were not possessed of the certificates. The case of the petitioners is that they have passed the examination in special subjects though on the date of interview they were not possessed of the certificates. It is therefore not a case where fraud is committed by the petitioners vis-a-vis the Selection Committee by producing fake or fabricated certificates or markssheets. If they were not entitled to additional marks such marks should not have been allotted to them and after the fresh exercise which is undertaken under the orders of this court it is found that some of the present petitioners were not entitled to allotment of additional marks and yet they were allotted additional mark. If the date of interview is taken as relevant date most of the petitioners were entitled to 2/4 additional marks as they have passed examination in the special subjects between the date of advertisement and the date of interview. The Selection Committee originally applied date of advertisement as relevant date for entitlement of additional marks on the basis of passing examination in special subjects. ( 25 ) ). In view of the aforesaid facts obtaining before this court it is not possible for this court to hold that the entire process of selection is vitiated by fraud nepotism favouritism and arbitrariness or to set aside the entire process of selection. In fact the respondent authorities also do not dispute or challenge the entire process of selection and it would prefer not to disturb those candidates who were appointment as per merit. The question which shall have to be answered therefore is as to whether based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Krishan Yadav (supra) appointments issued in favour of some of the candidates be cancelled and/or terminated on the ground of alleged irregularity committed by the members of the Selection Committee in preparing select-list. In none of the orders of termination except alleging irregularity any specific misconduct is attributed to the candidates. In fact no foundation is laid for holding that fraud is committed by any of the candidates. Mr. R. A. Mishra Ld. Advocate for respondent-authorities also could not substantiate the allegation of fraud as in none of the orders of termination specific fraud is attributed to anyone of the candidates nor is any element of fraud stated in the order or proved before this court. Mr. R. A. Mishra Ld. Advocate for respondent-authorities also could not substantiate the allegation of fraud as in none of the orders of termination specific fraud is attributed to anyone of the candidates nor is any element of fraud stated in the order or proved before this court. Similarly no specific allegation of nepotism or favouritism is made against any of the candidates. In the absence of allegations question of proving the same does not arise. In cases of most of the petitioners the stand of the respondent-authorities is that two marks were wrongly allotted by the Selection Committee. In some of the cases the allegation is that more meritorious candidates were left out and appointments were given to the petitioners. When Mr. R. A. Mishra Ld. Advocate for respondent-authorities was confronted with a straight question as to who are the candidates more meritorious and left out by the Selection Committee the answer was that such candidates were not at all called for interview. If such allegation was to be accepted the respondent-authorities ought to have cancelled the entire process of selection but that exercise they have not undertaken. Those candidates who have allegedly applied secured more marks and not called for interview have not made any grievance before this court or before any other court. They have not bothered to come to court of law at all. In this group of petitions therefore in my opinion it would not be just and proper to take into consideration those candidates who were allegedly more meritorious and who were not called for interview despite their better meritoriousness. When such persons have not made any grievance ever before this court or before the respondent-authorities and when they have not instituted any proceeding in the court of law it shall have to be assumed that they have waived their right and/or they are not vigilant about enforcement of their right if there can be said to be any. In this position therefore in my opinion it would be Just and proper to ignore consideration of such candidates who were allegedly more meritorious who had applied for the posts but who were not called for interview at all by the Selection Committee. The advertisement is of 1991. One round of litigation is already over in this Court when C. K. Thakkar J. quashed the orders of termination and remanded the matter to respondents. The advertisement is of 1991. One round of litigation is already over in this Court when C. K. Thakkar J. quashed the orders of termination and remanded the matter to respondents. At no stage since 1991 such allegedly more meritorious candidate have challenged their non-consideration or exclusion from consideration. If such candidates are excluded from consideration for their inaction indifference and non-vigilence and attention is focussed only on those candidates who were interviewed it would be practicable and reasonable to find out as to whether the present petitioners fall within the reasonable zone of consideration or within the permissible seats being 442. If in such an exercise the petitioners are beyond Sl. No. 442 they reasonably cannot claim any right to continue over the posts as their appointments were not on merit. ( 26 ) ). The learned Advocate for petitioners as well as respondents and the officers of the respondent-authorities agreed before this court that those candidates who were meritorious and not called for interview have not filed any petition in this court or any proceeding in any court of law. Consistent with the course of action adopted by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sri Ashok and Somanna Gowda v. State of Karnataka reported in A. I. R. 1992 SC 80 I am of the opinion that in the present proceedings it would not be just and proper for this court to open up a fresh line of litigation at the instance of allegedly meritorious candidates who wore not called for interview as such candidates having not come to the court of law and having not claimed any relief for redressal of their grievance from this court in my opinion such a class of candidates shall have to be excluded from consideration and question shall have to be examined vis-a-vis those candidates who were called for interview by the Selection Committee. In the case before the Supreme Court only two candidates aggrieved by the appointment sought relief by approaching the Administrative Tribunal. While granting relief to those two candidates the Supreme Court did not grant relief to those who had not approached the court of law for redressal of their grievance within reasonable time. In the case before the Supreme Court only two candidates aggrieved by the appointment sought relief by approaching the Administrative Tribunal. While granting relief to those two candidates the Supreme Court did not grant relief to those who had not approached the court of law for redressal of their grievance within reasonable time. On the analogous process of reasoning I am of the opinion that the candidates who were more meritorious and not called for interview at all and who have not approached any court including this court within reasonable time are not entitled to get any relief both on the ground of delay laches as well as on the ground of waiving their right if there was any. ( 27 ) ). The Ld. Counsel appearing for the pe titioners have contended that not only no case of fraud misrepresentation favouritism or nepotism is made out against any of the petitioners in the show cause notice or in the impugned order of termination in fact even in affidavit-inreply or by any other documentary evidence it is not established before this court that the petitioners or any one of them was guilty of fraud or misrepresentation. After going through the affidavit-in-reply in its entirety Mr. R. A. Mishra Ld. Advocate for respondents was not in a position to make out any case of fraud against any of the petitioners. He also cannot substantiate the allegation of misrepresentation except submitting that to number of petitioners two additional marks were allotted though they were not entitled to the same. The case of the petitioners on the other hand is that they have submitted their certificates of passing examination in special subjects. Such additional qualification is acquired by them between the date of advertisement and the date of interview. Based on such certificate if the marks are allotted to them by the Selection Committee it cannot be said that they were guilty of misrepresentation. On the basis of certificate produced in original or xerox copies thereof the Selection Committee could have ascertained as to whether the petitioners were entitled to allotment of two additional marks for passing examination in special subjects or not. It cannot therefore be said that the petitioners were guilty of misrepresentation. In the show-cause notice as well as impugned order of termination it is alleged against the petitioners that they were guilty of irregularity. It cannot therefore be said that the petitioners were guilty of misrepresentation. In the show-cause notice as well as impugned order of termination it is alleged against the petitioners that they were guilty of irregularity. Once again the question is as to whether any irregularity could be attributed to the petitioners. The only function of the petitioners in the entire process of selection is to make appreciation pursuant to advertisement along with necessary certificates and testimonials and marks-sheets. Based on such application and the marks obtained in relevant examination the Selection Committee is to work out the total number of marks. Under the Govt. Circular also the Selection Committee has no power to allot marks beyond allotting marks for passing SSC PTC examinations and 10 additional marks for passing examination in special subjects such as Drawing. Physical Training Sewing etc. The Selection Committee therefore also does not possess any power to allot any marks for performance at interview and in fact it is not the case of the respondents that marks were allotted by the Selection Committee for performance at interview. In view of this peculiar method of selection which is more or less objective and in which subjective element does not appear at any stage it is very difficult to appreciate as to how the petitioners can be said to be guilty of any irregularity. The relevant date for considering the eligibility for additional marks is to be fixed by the Selection Committee. The candidates have simply submitted their certificates and marks-sheet either in original or xerox copies thereof. One fails to understand as to how a candidate can be said to be guilty of any irregularity if he has submitted marks-sheet or certificate of passing examination subsequent to the date of advertisement but-prior to the date of interview. The Selection Committee has with open eyes allotted marks for passing examination in special subjects. Irregularity if any can be said to have been committed by the Selection Committee. The candidates cannot he visited with penal consequences for such irregularities allegedly committed by the then District Primary Education Officer or other members of Selection Committee or subordinate staff. The Selection Committee has with open eyes allotted marks for passing examination in special subjects. Irregularity if any can be said to have been committed by the Selection Committee. The candidates cannot he visited with penal consequences for such irregularities allegedly committed by the then District Primary Education Officer or other members of Selection Committee or subordinate staff. In case of no petitioner it is specifically attributed to him that any one of the officers was related to the petitioners or had taken special interest in the case of petitioner for extraneous considerations or has acted at the instance or under the influence of the petitioners. In the absence of any allegation of this nature it would be difficult for this court to come to conclusion that the petitioners were guilty of irregularity attributed to them in the process of selection. From the nature of affidavit-in-reply and the steps taken by the respondents against erring officers it prima facie becomes clear that the fault lay at the doors of the respondents and not at the doors of the petitioners. The respondents are absolutely justified in taking action against such erring officers which they have already taken by initiating departmental proceedings. This court has no manner of doubt that in case the charges are eatablished against such erring officers the respondents shall take appropriate action against such officers. However for any misconduct on their part irregularity of the nature alleged cannot be attributed to the petitioners and I am of the opinion that the orders of termination of services which are solely based on such allegation of alleged irregularity are not justified promissory Estoppel: ( 28 ) ). However for any misconduct on their part irregularity of the nature alleged cannot be attributed to the petitioners and I am of the opinion that the orders of termination of services which are solely based on such allegation of alleged irregularity are not justified promissory Estoppel: ( 28 ) ). It is contended by the petitioners before this court that even under the principle of promissory estoppel the respondents should be estopped from terminating the services of the petitioners inasmuch as acting on the printed order of appointment issued in their favour they have acted to their detriment inasmuch as first some of the petitioners resigned from service where they were already serving with a view to join the school at which postings were offered to them by the respondents secondly some of the petitioners received appointment orders in other schools subsequent to the orders of appointment received from the respondent authorities and they preferred to continue with the respondentauthorities and did not join the other posts of appointment thirdly some of the petitioners received interview call from various other District Panchayats for the post of Primary Teachers under their control but they could not respond to such interview calls as they were already employed in the schools run by the respondents and secondly their original documents/ certificates/ testimonials and marks-sheets were retained by the respondent-authorities for three years under the order of appointment and therefore in the absence of such documentary evidence they could not appear before the other authorities in other districts thereby giving up chance of appointment in other districts fourthly they have already executed bond for an amount of Rs. 10 0 to perform their part of contract i. e. to continue to serve as primary teachers in the schools run by the respondents for three years and therefore they having changed their position to their detriment the respondents are now estopped from terminating their services. ( 29 ) ). Before I proceed to examine the law on the subject specific allegations of the petitioners individually in this behalf are required to be mentioned as under: i. Petitioners of following SCAs are those who resigned from their existing job to join the services of the respondents or who despite receipt of their appointment orders from their districts could not join: spl. C. A. Nos. 1233 10236 10485 10306 10310 10281 10304 10222 of 1993. C. A. Nos. 1233 10236 10485 10306 10310 10281 10304 10222 of 1993. SCA 10537/92 The petitioner of this petition has actually received appointment orders from Kutch Amreli and Baroda districts but could not resume in view of employment with respondents. SCA 11032/93 The petitioner of this petition has actually received appointment orders from Ahmedabad Dist. Panchayat but could not join in view of employment with respondents. SCA Nos. 10186 10608 10320 10521 10180 10533 10538 and 10536 of 1993. ( 30 ) ). In case of the candidates falling in aforesaid two categories it is very strenuously urged before this court by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the respective petitioners that a strong case on facts as well as in law is made out for applying the principle of promissory estoppel so as to estop the respondents from terminating the service of the petitioners. It is submitted before this court that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent authorities the respective petitioners have applied for appointment to the post of primary teacher. Consistent with the requirement of advertisement as well as Government Circulars the petitioners were possessed of educational qualifications and they have submitted necessary certificates and marks-sheets. They have also submitted their necessary certificates and marks-sheets for allotment of additional marks for passing the examination in special subjects. Based on the aforesaid certificates marks sheets testimonials etc. which were required to be produced the Selection Committee of the respondent-authorities was to prepare merit list or select list and it has prepared the select list. Since the names of the petitioners were included in the merit list the letters of appointment were issued to the petitioners containing specific terms and conditions. In such letters the conditions reproduced hereinabove namely Condition Nos. 8 11 13 and 14 were specially incorporated. Under one of such conditions the person appointed was required to resign from any place of employment if he/she was already employed and was expected to join the services of respondents within seven days with certificate of earlier employer that he/she has resigned the services. 8 11 13 and 14 were specially incorporated. Under one of such conditions the person appointed was required to resign from any place of employment if he/she was already employed and was expected to join the services of respondents within seven days with certificate of earlier employer that he/she has resigned the services. The second stipulation is to the effect that the selectee or appointed candidate was required to produce all original certificates marks-sheets with the respondent-authorities within seven days which the authorities would retain for a period of three years thereby rendering such candidates ineligible to apply for appointment on the post of primary teacher or any other post on such qualification. Further condition requiring the candidates to deposit Rs. 10 0 in cash and/or execute a bond for equal amount by way of security bond incorporating that the candidate would serve the respondent-authorities for three years failing which amount shall be forfeited and also assured the petitioners of their permanent appointment as primary teachers with the respondent authorities. It is submitted before this court that based on such letters of appointment the petitioners in the first category who were already serving elsewhere have tendered their resignations from the place of their earlier employment and have joined the services of respondents. They have therefore rendered themselves jobless with a view to securing job with respondent authorities. They have themselves acted on representation made by respondents in the letter of appointment requiring them to resign within seven days and have altered their position to their determine by acting upon the report made to them by the respondent that they were being appointment in the services of respondent authorities as primary teachers. It is their case before this court that they have altered their position beyond repairs inasmuch as because of their tendering resignation from services of earlier employer they will not get back such employment. On the other hand they are now sought to be terminated from the services by the respondents. Respondents therefore should be estopped from terminating their services as well as the ingredients necessary for application of principle of promissory estoppel are duly satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this case of petitioners. ( 31 ) ). On the other hand they are now sought to be terminated from the services by the respondents. Respondents therefore should be estopped from terminating their services as well as the ingredients necessary for application of principle of promissory estoppel are duly satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this case of petitioners. ( 31 ) ). It may be stated at the outset that only general affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondents wherein individual allegations made by these petitioners in the memo of their SCAs to the effect that they were elsewhere serving and they have resigned from the employment are not denied. In number of cases the petitioners have given full proof of their earlier employment by producing letters of appointment or other evidence of their earlier employment and therefore this court has no reason to doubt the statements made on oath which have remained uncontroverted. ( 32 ) ). Turning to the second category of petitioners their case is that in response to the identical advertisements issued by the various other Districts in the State of Gujarat they had applied for the post of Primary teacher to such Dist. Panchayats. In the meanwhile they were appointed by the respondent-authorities in the primary schools under their control and they have already resumed at the place of their posting by surrendering all their certificates marks-sheets and testimonials to the respondent-authorities as required of them under the letters of their appointment. Since they were already employed in the services of respondentauthorities as primary teachers based on their educational qualifications they did not respond to the letters of interview received from Dist. Panchayats and secondly they could not attended such interview as their original certificates and marks-sheets were tendered by them to the respondent-authorities for a period of three years in the absence of which they were ineligible for appointment even in other districts and therefore they were denied the opportunity of being considered for the posts of primary teachers in other districts. Had their original certificates been not retained by the respondent-authorities they could have appeared in response to the interview calls received from other district and they could have secured gainful employment in other district panchayats on the basis of marks obtained by them. Had their original certificates been not retained by the respondent-authorities they could have appeared in response to the interview calls received from other district and they could have secured gainful employment in other district panchayats on the basis of marks obtained by them. By calling for original certificates and marks-sheets and further retaining the same for three years the respondent-authorities have rendered the petitioners ineligible to appear in response to the interview calls and have further denied them opportunity of being considered by the Selection Committee of other District Panchayats. In the country less unlimited every opportunity of being considered for a job with which human life is sustained shall have to be viewed appropriately and when the petitioners were denied such opportunity because of action of the respondentauthorities they should be now estopped from terminating services of the petitioners on the ground on which they are now sought to he terminated. It is more so when grounds of fraud misrepresentation corruption nepotism and favouritism are not made out and only attributed to the petitioners is that of alleged irregularity committed by the Selection Committee in allotting additional marks. It is submitted that in case of such primary teachers also who have foregone the opportunity of being considered for the job for which even they were otherwise eligible principle of promissory estoppel must apply. It is stated at this stage that no affidavit-in reply is filed denying whether the specific allegations made by the petitioners about the receipt of interview calls by them from other district panchayats are true or not. In tact in most of the petitions such interview call letters are annexed with the petition and/or specific reference is made to such letters of interview in the memo of Spl. C A. Therefore there is no reason for this court not to accept the averments made by the petitioners which have remained uncontroverted and which are even otherwise supported by document ary evidence. ( 33 ) ). The doctrine of promissory estoppel was for the first time applied by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Indo Afghan Agencies reported in AIR 1968 SC 718 . Subsequently the doctrine was applied in the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Cos. Ltd. v. The Ullasnagar Municipal Council and Anr. ( 33 ) ). The doctrine of promissory estoppel was for the first time applied by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Indo Afghan Agencies reported in AIR 1968 SC 718 . Subsequently the doctrine was applied in the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Cos. Ltd. v. The Ullasnagar Municipal Council and Anr. reported in AIR 1971 SC 1021 wherein the court observed that Public bodies are as much bound as private individuals to carry out representations of facts and promises made by them relying on which other persons have altered their position to their prejudice. The obligation arising against an individual out of his representation amounting to a promise may be enforced ex contractu by a person who acts upon the promise when the law requires that a contract enforceable at law against a public body shall be in certain form or be executed in the manner prescribed by the Statute the obligation may be enforced against it in appropriate cases in equity. In the case of M. R. Sugar Mills v. State of UP reported in AIR 1979 SC 621 Justice P. N. Bhagwati (as His Lordship then was) offered the most eloquent expansion of the doctrine in the following words:. . . . where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party the promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties and this would be so irrespective whether there is any preexisting relationship between the parties or not. ( 34 ) ). In the case of Bhim Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in AIR 1980 SC 768 once again the doctrine was invoked by the Supreme Court when the State Govt. holding out certain specific promises as inducement for its employees to move into a newly created department. ( 34 ) ). In the case of Bhim Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in AIR 1980 SC 768 once again the doctrine was invoked by the Supreme Court when the State Govt. holding out certain specific promises as inducement for its employees to move into a newly created department. The employees acted on the said report and moved to newly created department. However rights and benefits which were promised to them in the representation by the State Govt. were sought to be denied whereupon the Supreme Court intervened and applied he doctrine of promissory estoppel. ( 35 ) ). Attention of this court is invited by the Ld. Advocate for petitioners to application of said doctrine in case of master- servant relationship. The reliance was placed upon the decision of the Division Bench of Orissa High Court in the case of Ranchhanidhi Das v. State of Orissa reported in 1972 0 SLR 499. In the said call the State Govt. as well as Notified Area Council granted exemption to the petitioner from the requirement of possessing specific qualifications. After granting such exemption petitioner was promoted. He thereafter continued in service for two decades and when he was about to superannuate he was sought to he demoted on the ground that he was lacking requisite qualification. In the aforesaid situation the Division Bench applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel by referring to the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. ( 36 ) ). Similarly in the case of State of Punjab v. Smt. Harbans Kaur reported in 1980 (3) SLR 269 the Ld. single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court applied the principle of promissory estoppel. The qualifications possessed by respondentharbans Kaur were not equivalent to J. B. T. diploma. The Govt. however recognised such qualifications as equivalent to J. B. T. diploma and appointed the respondent on the post of teacher. She was later confirmed on the said post. The Govt. latter on found such qualification not to be equivalent to J. B. T. diploma and wanted to terminate her services. In this fact-situation the doctrine was applied holding that based on the Govt. s action the respondent has accepted the employment and has worked in the post of teacher. She was even confirmed in such post thereafter. She has thereafter not made any attempt to secure any other employment. In this fact-situation the doctrine was applied holding that based on the Govt. s action the respondent has accepted the employment and has worked in the post of teacher. She was even confirmed in such post thereafter. She has thereafter not made any attempt to secure any other employment. She has to that extent acted to her detriment. The Govt. having accepted her qualifications as equivalent to required diploma it was then estopped from taking up a different stand. By the aforesaid process of reasoning the court granted relief to the teacher. ( 37 ) ). In the case of Km. Maxey Charan v. Rohilkhand University Bareilly reported in AIR 1992 Allahabad 122 the Allahabad High Court applied the principle of promissory estoppel when the petitioner was declared successful in examination by the University and when based on such result she got admission on the basis of marks-sheet supplied. Subsequently results of said examination were sought to be cancelled by the University on the ground of mistake committed in preparing marks-sheet. It was the case of the University that the mistake was committed by its officers. The petitioner who acted upon declaration of result and supply of markssheet to her moved the Court when she has already got admission and has prosecuted her studies further. The Court held that mistake in preparing markssheet was committed by the officers of respondent-University and it was no committed by the petitioner. The petitioner was in no way responsible for such mistake. The Court held that on the basis of Universitys assurance which is contained in the marks-sheet the petitioner has improved her position and it cannot be now altered to her disadvantage after lapse of about two years. It was in this situation that the doctrine of promissory estoppel was applied. ( 38 ) ). In the case of Miss Swapna Rani Das v. Utkal University reported in AIR 1985 Orissa 37 the Division Bench of Orissa High Court applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel against the University when the University gave on two occasions the provisional certificates to student certifying that she has passed Intermediate Examination in Arts. The University was estopped from later saying that the candidate was unsuccessful at the examination and that she should appear once again. ( 39 ) ). The University was estopped from later saying that the candidate was unsuccessful at the examination and that she should appear once again. ( 39 ) ). In my opinion in view of the aforesaid decisions more particularly the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padmapat Sugar Mills (supra) law on the subject is very clear. The issuance of advertisement for filling the post of Primary Teachers the action of the petitioners in applying for the post of Primary Teachers in response thereto the preparation of select list by the Selection Committee of the respondent-authorities and lastly issuance of order of appointment in favour of petitioners constitute a promise on the statement of assurance to the petitioners that he/she shall be appointed on the post of primary teacher on his/her being selected for such post by the Selection Committee. To reinforce that assurance there is further stipulation in the order that such teacher shall have to execute bond of Rs. 10 0 to serve for a period of three years within 7 days. Thirdly condition was stipulated that the appointee shall have to resign from the place of employment if he/she is already employed and shall have to report for duty within 7 days along with certificate from the earlier employer. When the petitioners belonging to category I state hereinabove acted upon such statement and resigned from their earlier post of employment they undoubtedly acted to their detriment and altered their position to their disadvantage. They rendered themselves jobless to secure new job with the respondents. When such petitioner are sought to be terminated from the employment which was offered to them by the order of appointment they having acted on the report of the respondents to their disadvantage and they having altered their position to their disadvantage and they having altered their position to their prejudice are entitled to invoke principle of promissory estoppel so as to request the court to estop the respondents from termination their service. When confronted with this factual background Mr. R. A. Mishra Ld. Advocate for respondents very faintly submitted before the court eat since such teachers had committed irregularities doctrine of promissory estoppel should not be applied. As discussed hereinabove irregularity if any is committed by the Selection Committee and/or the officers of the respondent-authorities. When confronted with this factual background Mr. R. A. Mishra Ld. Advocate for respondents very faintly submitted before the court eat since such teachers had committed irregularities doctrine of promissory estoppel should not be applied. As discussed hereinabove irregularity if any is committed by the Selection Committee and/or the officers of the respondent-authorities. The petitioner of category I set our hereinabove were not guilty of nay irregularity nor is any specific irregularity attributed to any of these petitioners. I therefore do not see any reason why the principal of promissory estoppel should not be applied in case of the petitioner belonging to category I These petitioners having already resigned from the place of their employment with a view to joining the respondent-authorities in the primary schools being run by them the respondents shall have to be estopped from terminating their service by applying principle of estoppel and the resultant effect would be that the orders of termination issued against such petitioners by the respondent-authorities shall have to be quashed and set aside. ( 40 ) ). Turning now to the second category of teachers it shall have to be decide on the facts as to whether principle of promissory estoppel can be applied. In this category the petitioner teachers who have surrendered their original certificates marks-sheets and testimonials to the respondent-authorities at the time of joining services consistent with the requirement of order of appointment as they to be retained by the respondent-authorities for a period of three years cannot be said to be as fault. It is submitted before this court by Mr. R. A. Mishra Ld. Advocate for respondent that since performance bond for serving the respondent-authorities for three years is obtained from candidates certificates and marks-sheets etc. in original are retained by the respondent-authorities for a period of three years. He submitted that in fact express stipulation is made in the order of appointment and consistent with such stipulation teachers have supplied their original certificates marks-sheets etc. for which no fault can be found with the respondent-authorities. On the other hand it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioners that had original certificates marks-sheets been returned to them or had they been made available to them they could have responded to the calls of interview received from other districts for appointment in the post of primary teachers. On the other hand it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioners that had original certificates marks-sheets been returned to them or had they been made available to them they could have responded to the calls of interview received from other districts for appointment in the post of primary teachers. They further submitted that on the basis of their marks they could have obtained appointment in other districts. By not returning to them or not making them available the original certificates marks-sheets etc. the respondentauthorities have deprived the opportunities to the petitioners of responding to the interview calls received from respective authorities and further opportunity of being considered for the post of primary teachers and getting appointed on such posts. . ( 41 ) ). It appears that the respondent-authorities have while incorporating such requirement in the order of appointment relied upon the Circular dated 29-10 1987 issued by the Director of Education. In such circular it is inter alia stipulated that a candidate obtaining first appointment as primary teacher shall have to execute a bond for serving continuously for three years at the place of appointment. It is further directed that a candidate securing appointment as primary teacher for the first time shall have to surrender SSC/ptc certificate to the Education Department after noting the number of order of appointment at the reverse of such certificate. Consistent with such administrative instructions issued by the Director of Education the respondent-authorities have incorporated specific stipulation in the order of appointment. Mr. R. A. Mishra Ld. Advocate for respondents submitted that the respondents were in law bound to comply with such directions and therefore by incorporating such condition and by compliance of such direction it cannot be said that the respondents have denied any opportunity to the petitioners. The order of appointment with specific stipulations of aforesaid nature therein undoubtedly would work as promise or assurance to the appointment that he/she is appointed on the post of primary teacher. Secondly he/ she shall have to serve for a minimum period of three years thereby leaving no option to the teacher to have the job. In order to see that the teacher does not leave the job earlier i. e. within three years the directions are issued to the effect that the original certificate of the teacher should be retained by the Education Department. In order to see that the teacher does not leave the job earlier i. e. within three years the directions are issued to the effect that the original certificate of the teacher should be retained by the Education Department. The objective of such direction is to see that a primary teacher once appointed continues in the post and does not run in search of other employment from place to place. For imparting primary education special report shall have to developed between a teacher and the taught. Frequent changes in the teachers would be detrimental to the education. It is also desired that having been appointed as a primary teacher for the first time the candidate must be static at a place for three years. With such relevant consideration the direction is issued. Purpose is to ensure permanency of service. A teacher who has already secured employment with such stipulation in the order of appointment ordinarily need not search for other employment. However such a teacher when he receives interview calls from other districts is fully eligible for being considered. He may not appear in response to interview call because he has already secured employment. He may appear in response to the interview call if the original certificates are made available to him. He may even be successful in getting employment at the other places also. The retention of original certificates though with a view to ensure permanency to a teacher in employment. may result into denying him an opportunity of being considered for the post of primary teacher. The disability resulting therefrom namely in getting employment elsewhere assumes importance in case of this nature where the respondent-authorities subsequently resort to their power of termination of service of teachers employed for a period of three years prematurely. It is in such case that the teachers who have no responded to the calls of interview received from other districts can legitimately say that they could have appeared and secured employment had the original certificates been made available to them. Even right of being considered for employment when denied by the conduct of respondents can be pressed into service by this class or teachers to contend before the court that they have acted to their determent by accepting the employment and by surrendering their original certificates. It may be that number of such teachers may have become age-barred. Even right of being considered for employment when denied by the conduct of respondents can be pressed into service by this class or teachers to contend before the court that they have acted to their determent by accepting the employment and by surrendering their original certificates. It may be that number of such teachers may have become age-barred. It may be that in future they may not be in a position to compete with the fresh candidates because of liberal standards applied in putting candidates for SSC/ptc examination. Number of factors may enter into consideration. The ultimate result is that this class of teachers have foregone the opportunity of being considered for job because of their employment wit he respondent authorities and secondly because of the condition stipulated in the order namely that of retaining original certificates for three years. In my opinion taking all factors into consideration cumulatively and in the peculiar facts and circumstances when no allegations of fraud malpractice misrepresentation are specifically attributed to any of the petitioners and when allegations of irregularities are attributable to the then Dist. Primary Education Officer or subordinate members of his staff it would be just and proper to apply the doctrine of promissory estoppel in case of such teachers also so as to estop the respondents from terminating their services. ( 42 ) ). The next question is as to whether rest of the petitioners who have bee selected and appointed and/or serving in various schools under the control of respondents since 1992 should now he terminated. It is pertinent to note that according to respondents around 8 0 applications were received. Admittedly the vacancies were then not at at notified. The case of limited vacancies was not placed before C. K. Thakkar J. It is pleaded before this Court for the first time that on the date of advertisement there were 257 vacancies only. Similarly the case of omission of reserved seats for reserved categories was also not pleaded before C. K. Thakkar J. but is pleaded before this Court only. The respondents are also not in a position to explain as to how as against 257 vacancies actually 442 appointments came to be made. Appointment in excess of vacancies would raise the question of finance and necessary where-withals. The attention of the authorities would immediately be drawn to the fact that more number of teachers are employed. The respondents are also not in a position to explain as to how as against 257 vacancies actually 442 appointments came to be made. Appointment in excess of vacancies would raise the question of finance and necessary where-withals. The attention of the authorities would immediately be drawn to the fact that more number of teachers are employed. Even subsequently out of 442 candidates already appointed only 120 were sought to be terminated initially. It is admitted that thereafter some of the candidates were employed from SC ST and Bakshi Panch categories. Ultimately only 74 appointees were terminated out of whom 4 are ordered to he reinstated in service by this Court on submission made by the respondents that they were falling within 257 selected candidates. It is submitted before this court that in fact only 114 candidates from the earlier select list were entitled to be appointed and 318 were liable to he terminated. Initially 120 were terminated and rest were to be terminated but for the intervention of the Court they were not terminated. 244 such candidates have as such continued. It is in this fact situation that this Court is called upon to decide as to whether it should permit the respondent-authorities to terminate the services of the remaining petitioners. It is very difficult to state that these petitioners have obtained initial employment by committing any fraud or misrepresentation. They are also not guilty of committing any malpractice or misconduct. No specific allegation is made against any petitioner that he/she is guilty of influencing any of the members of the Selection Committee. It is also not stated against any of the petitioners that he/she was related to any member of the Selection Committee. In fact no marks are allotted for performance at interview as no interview in the strict sense of the term is held. Under the Rules and circulars issued marks are to be allotted on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in the examination. Marks-sheet is to be prepared by the Selection Committee based on the certificates. Therefore it is very difficult for this court to agree with the respondents that the petitioners were guilty of any irregularity in obtaining employment. Irregularity if there was any was attributable only to then Dist. Primary Education Officer and the members of subordinate staff. Marks-sheet is to be prepared by the Selection Committee based on the certificates. Therefore it is very difficult for this court to agree with the respondents that the petitioners were guilty of any irregularity in obtaining employment. Irregularity if there was any was attributable only to then Dist. Primary Education Officer and the members of subordinate staff. Even otherwise it is pointed out that rest of the petitioners have obtained additional qualification by passing examination in special subjects and have rendered themselves eligible for teaching additional subjects. It is further pointed out that large number of candidates who were not selected have not come to the court or have not made any grievance before any legal forum. It is submitted that if fresh list is ordered to he prepared and candidates are ordered to be appointed from said select list not only the services of the present 70 petitioners will be terminated but 244 other teachers would also be required to be terminated. It is in this fact-situation that I am of the opinion that since the employment of the present petitioners cannot be said to be vitiated by any fraud mistake or misrepresentation on their part and since no irregularity in getting employment could be attributed to them the respondents cannot be permitted to terminate their services on the ground that their officer has committed irregularity in giving employment to the petitioners. These observations are made in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case because to permit the respondents to terminate these 70 teachers would further give rise to further litigation inasmuch 244 other teachers who are also irregularly appointed shall have also to be terminated after a period of service of around three years. Therefore the orders of termination passed against rest of the petitioners are also required to be quashed and set aside and are hereby quashed and set aside. ( 43 ) ). Before parting with this judgment I think it is the duty of the Court to sec that the seats required to be reserved for SC ST and Baxi Panch community candidates are really reserved for them and are filled in from such class only. ( 43 ) ). Before parting with this judgment I think it is the duty of the Court to sec that the seats required to be reserved for SC ST and Baxi Panch community candidates are really reserved for them and are filled in from such class only. In para 16 of this judgment it is pointed out that if total vacancies are worked out as 442 176 seats were required to be reserved for SC ST and Baxi Panch community candidates and for physically handicapped persons. As against aforesaid requirement 91 candidates of reserved category are already appointed. 8 in category of SC and 4 in the category of physically handicapped persons are appointed in excess of required reservation. In the next recruitment which the authorities are directed to complete by 30th June 1995 the reservation in the aforesaid two categories would be reduced to aforesaid extent. In the category of ST candidates 13 and Baxi Panch community 16 candidates are appointed less in number than the quota reserved. The respondents are directed to operate if they so desire the separate list of ST and Baxi Panch community or to prepare a fresh list and to carry forward such seats for candidates belonging to these two categories. The anxiety of this Court is to sec that in any case the seals reserved for SC ST and Baxi Panch community candidates are not allotted to general category candidates and respondents will scrupulously carry out these directions while resorting to fresh recruitment. ( 44 ) ). The question now is as to whether other candidates who have not come to the Court at all making grievance about their non-employment or their nonappointment despite their better merit could now be permitted to agitate their stale cause. Consistent with the observations made by the Supreme in the case of Kum. Maxey Charan reported in AIR 1992 All. 122 followed by this Court in the case of Gujarat Engineering Services Cl. IGII SPL. CA Nos. 6475/ 91 etc. decided on 27 those persons having slept over their right and having never approached the court are not entitled to any relief which is being granted to the petitioners who were not only appointed on the post of Primary Teacher but who have continuously served on such post since the date of their appointment. CA Nos. 6475/ 91 etc. decided on 27 those persons having slept over their right and having never approached the court are not entitled to any relief which is being granted to the petitioners who were not only appointed on the post of Primary Teacher but who have continuously served on such post since the date of their appointment. The claim of such candidates who have since 1992 till date not come to the court for any relief is undoubtedly a stale claim and they cannot be granted any relief when they have chosen not to come to the court at any point of time. The relief is therefore confined only to the petitioners whose services are sought to be terminated by the impugned orders of termination. The orders of termination passed against the petitioners therefore are hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to continue the petitioners in service as Primary Teachers as if no order of termination is passed against them. Rule is made absolute in each petition accordingly. No Costs. .