Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The short facts of the case appear to be that on 15.01.1990, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon (Class-IV) in Ayurvedic Dispensary by District Ayurvedic Officer. The pertinent aspect is that, the names were called from the employment exchange and interviews were held and the petitioner was selected for the post on regular basis. It appears that thereafter, there was some internal correspondence between the department, viz. the District Panchayat, Ayurvedic Branch and the Director of Indian Ayurvedic and Homeopathic System and as a result thereof, the appropriate orders were to be passed by the competent authority. But instead of that, the petitioner came to be relieved from service on 31.01.1990 read with order dated 06.02.1990. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said decision of termination, had preferred Special Civil Application No. 2331/94 before this Court. This Court (Coram: M.S. Parikh, J.), vide order dated 17.12.1994 observed that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and it is a matter between the two authorities and therefore, the petitioner was relegated to make representation and the authorities were directed to consider the same with the recommendation that since the petitioner is nowhere at fault and the appointment of the petitioner is otherwise regular, the representation shall be considered sympathetically. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner made representation and he was dragged from pillar to post and no orders were passed for reinstatement. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to prefer the present petition one again before this Court. 2. This Court (Coram : R.K.Abhichandani, J.) on 14.03.1996, had passed the following order: “Rule. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the question of interim relief. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon by order dated 15.1.1990 passed by the District Ayurvedic Officer in the Ayurvedic Dispensary at Adwal. The said dispensary was originally under the State Government and District Ayurvedic Officer could have at that time issued orders of appointment of Peon. However, the dispensary appears to have been transferred to the District Panchayat as per the policy from 1.4.1989. Since the order is made on 15.1.1990 when only the District Panchayat could have made such appointment, problem arose for the petitioner whose services came to be terminated on 6.2.1990 on the ground that the appointment was not issued by the competent authority. Since the order is made on 15.1.1990 when only the District Panchayat could have made such appointment, problem arose for the petitioner whose services came to be terminated on 6.2.1990 on the ground that the appointment was not issued by the competent authority. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 2231 of 1994 in which my learned brother Mr.Justice M.S.Parikh made an order on December 17, 1994 by which the concerned authority was required to decide the representation to be made by the petitioner within two weeks of that order. It appears that the District Panchayat had addressed a letter on 19.11.1992 to the Director, Indian Medical Homeopathy at Gandhinagar recommending correction of the administrative mistake for which the petitioner was not responsible. On 23.12.1994 the petitioner made a representation, a copy of which is at Annexure “E”, to the Development Commissioner who was supposed to decide the matter. The Development Commissioner however, has not taken any decision uptill now. It is therefore, directed by way of interim relief that the respondents the State of Gujarat and the Development Commissioner will take an appropriate decision as regards the appointment of the petitioner as Peon in light of the recommendations made by the District Panchayat and in context of his representation dated 23.12.1994, a copy of which is at Annexure “E” to the petition, within one week from the date of the service of this order and place the same on the record of this petition. Direct service is permitted.” 3. Therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid order, the respondents were directed to take appropriate decision as regards the appointment of the petitioner as Peon in light of the recommendation made by the District Panchayat and in the context of the representation dated 23.12.1994, copy whereof is produced at Annexure-E to the petition. 4. Inspite of the aforesaid direction, no decision was taken and therefore, the petitioner had to prefer Civil Application No. 3714/96 in the present petition for appropriate action against the respondent authority for non-compliance to the order passed by this Court. 4. Inspite of the aforesaid direction, no decision was taken and therefore, the petitioner had to prefer Civil Application No. 3714/96 in the present petition for appropriate action against the respondent authority for non-compliance to the order passed by this Court. It appears that the State machinery thereafter was geared up at the level of State Government as well as at the level of District Panchayat and thereafter, ultimately, the order was passed by the State Government dated 12.04.1996, whereby the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Peon (Class-IV) in the set up of the District Panchayat, Ahmedabad and on the basis of the said order of the State Government, on 24.04.1996, the District Panchayat passed the Office Order for posting of the petitioner, therefore, in this manner, the petitioner has been reinstated in service. However, the relevant aspect is that, instead of considering the representation of the petitioner based on the earlier final decision by this Court dated 17.12.1994 in Special Civil Application No. 2231/94, the orders have been passed by the State Government as if, there are interim orders in the present proceeding, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 7645/95 and as the orders were passed by this Court in the present proceedings, the approval for appointment or the actual appointment has been granted, subject to the final order as may be passed by this Court in the present proceedings. At that stage, the matter has come up before this Court for final disposal. 5. It deserves to be recorded that the petitioner has been regularly selected over the post of Class-IV after undergoing regular selection process, viz. the names were called for from the Employment Exchange and interview was held and he was regularly appointed on the regular pay-scale. Therefore, it is not a case of back door entry or entering the service without following the regular selection process. It is true that there was inter se non-reconciliation of the authority about the power to issue appointment order and based on such inter se dispute between the two departments of the Government, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 31.01.1990 read with order dated 06.02.1990. It is true that there was inter se non-reconciliation of the authority about the power to issue appointment order and based on such inter se dispute between the two departments of the Government, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 31.01.1990 read with order dated 06.02.1990. But, both the orders were subject matter of challenge before this Court in the proceedings of Special Civil Application No. 2231/94 and this Court had passed the order which reads as under: “The petitioner has challenged the termination orders dated 31.1.1990 and 6.2.1990 (Annexures: C & D) as a result of which the petitioner is out of service. The reason why the petitioner came to be terminated is that the appointment order was not issued by the Competent Authority. It is in this connection that the learned Advocate of the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure : G which is a letter dated 19.11.1992 addressed by the District Ayurved Officer (Jilla Ayurved Adhikari), District Panchayat, Ahmedabad to the Director Indian Systems Medicine and Homeopathy at Gandhinagar. Even by this letter recommendation is made for correction of the administrative mistake for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. The solution of the mistake was solicited by the aforesaid letter dated 19.11.1992 but so far no decision appears to have been taken. It would be, therefore, appropriate to give an opportunity to the petitioner to make representation to the concerned Authority viz. Respondent No. 2 herein for the purpose of correction of mistake as pointed out in the letter dated 19.11.1992. Such representation shall be made by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today and the respondent No. 2 shall decide the said representation alongwith the correction solicited in letter dated 19.11.1992 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation. It is hereby recommended that since the petitioner is no where at fault and since the petitioner’s appointment is otherwise regular, the representation shall be considered sympathetically. In view of the aforesaid direction this petition is not required to be entertained any further. The same is accordingly disposed of. Notice discharged with no order as to costs.” 6. Therefore, on the aspect of regular selection process undertaken by the petitioner, the observation of the Court is in favour of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid direction this petition is not required to be entertained any further. The same is accordingly disposed of. Notice discharged with no order as to costs.” 6. Therefore, on the aspect of regular selection process undertaken by the petitioner, the observation of the Court is in favour of the petitioner. Further, on the aspects of no mistake or fault on the part of the petitioner, the observations are in favour of the petitioner. The aforesaid order dated 17.12.1994 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2214/94 is not challenged by the State Government before higher forum nor it is even the stand of the State Government in the reply filed in the proceedings of Civil Application No. 3714/94 that the matter was carried before the higher forum. Therefore, the said order became final. It is true that after making observations that the petitioner is selected by regular selection process and after observing that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner, this Court directed for making representation and the authorities were directed to consider the same. But thereby, the judicial observation for regular selection process undertaken and the petitioner having been selected for such purpose and there is no fault on the part of the petitioner, would not attract any further judicial scrutiny in the present proceedings when the grievance on the part of the petitioner is the non-compliance of the earlier order dated 17.12.1994 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2231/94. 7. It appears that after the petitioner is selected on 15.01.1990, he was relieved from service on 31.01.1990 and thereafter, has been reinstated only on 24.04.1996. Therefore, on account of the delay in taking decision by the concerned authority, the petitioner has remained out of service. The claim made by the petitioner in the present petition is also for grant of monetary benefits as if the petitioner has continued in service from 06.02.1990. But, it appears that there is also lapse on the part of the petitioner in not pursuing the matter further inasmuch as after he was relieved from service in the year 1990, the petition has been preferred for the first time in the year 1994 being Special Civil Application No. 2231/94. But, it appears that there is also lapse on the part of the petitioner in not pursuing the matter further inasmuch as after he was relieved from service in the year 1990, the petition has been preferred for the first time in the year 1994 being Special Civil Application No. 2231/94. Even after the order was passed by this Court, on 17.12.1994, the petitioner has made representation and has pursued the matter, but has not made complaint by initiation of proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, or otherwise, and has preferred the present petition. The fact remains that the petitioner has actually not worked during the said period. 8. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, it appears that the petitioner would not be entitled for any backwages, but would be entitled to continuity in service notionally as if appointed from 15.01.1990. It will be for the competent authority to pass appropriate consequential order in this regard so as to make the appointment of the petitioner relegating back from 15.09.1990 without backwages from 15.01.1990 to 24.04.1996, as early as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months from the receipt of the order of this Court. As the petitioner has already been reinstated in service, no further direction deserves to be issued, but the treatment shall be given to the status of the petitioner as in employment as observed by this Court hereinabove, w.e.f. 15.01.1990. 9. Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.