JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following prayers: “(A) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, quashing and setting aside the action of the respondents in continuing with the imposition of reservation in the excess of 50% in the appointment s to Class – III and Class – IV posts in the Secondary and Higher Secondary schools in the city of Surat.” 1.1 Thus, the petitioners are seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities restraining them to provide reservation to the excess of 50% in the appointment to Class – III and IV posts in the secondary and higher secondary schools of Surat District. 2. Learned advocate Mr.Mitul Shelat for the petitioners has invited the attention of this Court to the judgment dated 25.08.2000 passed in Special Civil Application No.6098 of 1990 filed by the petitioners. He has submitted that this Court had negated the submissions advanced by learned Advocate General with regard to permissibility of providing reservation in excess of 50%. He has submitted that the respondent authorities are required to fix the reservation not exceeding 50% of limit as observed by the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid judgment. He has submitted that the respondent State is not following its own resolution policy with regard to fixation of the reservation in the Surat district with regard to the appointments to Class – III and IV posts in the Secondary and Higher Secondary schools. He has further submitted that the Government Resolution dated 21.01.1986, upon which the reliance is placed by the respondents, is misconceived since in fact the resolution is nullified by this Court. Thus, he has submitted that the respondent State may be directed not to fix the reservation to the aforesaid posts in the Surat district. He has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 119 . 3. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Dhawan Jayswal has submitted that in fact the policy formulated by the State Government in the year of 1999 for reservation is followed in letter and spirit. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 119 . 3. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Dhawan Jayswal has submitted that in fact the policy formulated by the State Government in the year of 1999 for reservation is followed in letter and spirit. He has submitted that in fact in order to adjust the backlog vacancies with regard to the reserved categories, the State authorities have fixed the reservation with regard to the aforesaid posts in the Surat district and hence, no irregularities have been found. 4. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 5. The petitioners had approached this Court by filling the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.6098 of 1990 challenging the resolution of the State Government dated 16.05.1990 and the circular dated 30.05.1990 instructing all the Secondary and Higher Secondary schools in the Surat district to maintain the reservation, which would exceed 50%. The said writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 25.08.2000 by observing thus; “Learned Advocate General for the State initially made an effort to support the impugned resolution and the circular of the Government by placing different interpretation on section 34 of the Act of 1972. He also argued that subsection (1) of section 34 provides 50% reservation which is minimum and not the maximum. Therefore, keeping in view the population of SC and ST in a given area, reservation may exceed 50% and has to be upheld, unless it is found to be unreasonable or arbitrary. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not consider it necessary go into detail into the contentions based on section 34. In my considered opinion, the petition deserves to succeed on the short ground that under the impugned resolution and the circular of the Government, direction to reserve seats for different categories in excess of 50% cannot be held to be consistent with the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in case of Indra Sawhney (supra).The Supreme Court has held that reservation in all categories should not exceed 50% so as to balance the competing claims of forward and backward classes of the society. This petition is pending before this Court since 1990. Decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) and the subsequent decision were rendered during the pendency of this petition. This petition is pending before this Court since 1990. Decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) and the subsequent decision were rendered during the pendency of this petition. It is high time now for the State Government to reconsider the policy of reservation for aided educational institutions in the State. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned resolution and the circular issued thereon cannot be sustained. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned resolution of the State Government dated 16.5.1990 and the circular issued thereon dated 30.5.1990 (Annexures `B' and `C' to the petition) are hereby quashed. State Government is, however, granted liberty to reexamine its reservation policy in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) and subsequent decision, and issue fresh resolution in accordance with the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as also in the light of the provisions contained in Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972. This petition is pending since 1990 in which the State Government came up with a cryptic reply in July, 2000. This is a fit case where costs should be saddled and the petitioner-Association be reimbursed for bringing a public cause. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- be paid by the respondents to the petitioner-Association. Rule is accordingly made absolute.” 5.1 A perusal of the judgment would reveal that this Court had recorded the percentage of reservation in the Surat District and it was found that the same exceeds 50% and was in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 and in the case of Ajit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1999 SC 3471 . The contentions raised by the learned Advocate General with regard to the fixation of the reservation above 50% in view of the population of SC and ST category in the given year was rejected. The Coordinate Bench directed the State authorities to follow the law laid down by the judgment in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra). It appears that the attention of the Court was not invited to the Government Resolution dated 08.03.1999, wherein the State Government has promulgated that in any case while fixing the reservation, the same shall not exceed 50%. The Coordinate Bench directed the State authorities to follow the law laid down by the judgment in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra). It appears that the attention of the Court was not invited to the Government Resolution dated 08.03.1999, wherein the State Government has promulgated that in any case while fixing the reservation, the same shall not exceed 50%. The State Government has also fixed the roster points with regard to all the reserved categories as well as general category and accordingly the aforesaid policy was promulgated. Thus, the State Government is required to follow the aforesaid policy as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court and by the Coordinate Bench in the judgment dated 25.08.2000. 6. The State Government has also issued the Resolution dated 07.03.2017 with regard to the fixation of reservation of the reserved category. The Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh(supra) has observed thus: 42. These observations make it abundantly clear that the reservations should not be so excessive as to render the Fundamental Right under Article 16(1) of the Constitution meaningless. In Indra Sawhney (supra), this Court has observed as under: “In our opinion, however, the result of application of carry-forward rule, in whatever manner it is operated, shall not result in breach of 50% rule." Therefore, utmost care has to be taken that the 50% maximum limit placed on reservation in any particular year by this Court in Indra Sawhney case (supra) must be maintained. It must further be ensured that in making reservations for the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the maintenance of the efficiency of administration is not impaired. 43. *** *** *** 44. *** *** *** 45. The selection procedure provided the minimum age for recruitment as 21 years and the maximum age of 25 years on the cut off date. Relaxation of age for various categories of candidates in accordance with the Government Orders issued from time to time was also admissible. This included five years' relaxation in age to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and dependents of Freedom Fighters. Relaxation of age was also provided in case of Ex-servicemen. The period of service rendered in Army would be reduced for computing the age of the Ex-Army personnel. After deducting the period of service they had rendered in the Army, they would be deemed eligible. Relaxation of age was also provided in case of Ex-servicemen. The period of service rendered in Army would be reduced for computing the age of the Ex-Army personnel. After deducting the period of service they had rendered in the Army, they would be deemed eligible. These were mere eligibility conditions for being permitted to participate in the selection process. Thereafter, the candidates had to appear in a Preliminary Written Test. This consisted of 300 maximum marks and the candidates were required to secure 50% or more marks to participate in the further selection process. Thereafter, the candidates had to undergo physical test consisting of 100 marks. Again a candidate was required to secure at least 50% or more marks.” 7. Looking to the policy as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court, it is no more res integra that the reservation shall not exceed 50% and the State authorities are required to follow the same. 8. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition succeeds in part. The respondents are hereby directed to fix the reservation with regard to the appointments to the posts of Class – III and IV in the Secondary and Higher Secondary schools in the City of Surat in conformity with their own resolutions as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 25.08.2000 passed in Special Civil Application No.6098 of 1990. Appropriate order and necessary exercise shall be carried out within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. It is clarified that in the earlier case, the contentions raised by the State Government with regard to the fixation of the reservation exceeding 50% is already rejected, in the aforesaid judgment dated 25.08.2000, and therefore, the State authorities are directed to fix the reservation in light of the aforesaid observations and such observation shall not exceed more than 50%. 9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.