Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—Admit. Mr. Pathak, learned AGP waives notice of admission. 2. With the consent of Learned Advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard. 3. The present appeal arises against the order dated 23.06.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5700/09, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. 4. Heard Mr. Makwana, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Pathak, learned AGP for the State. 5. It is an undisputed position that the appellant was working as Craft Teacher in a private institute which was aided by the Government. It is also undisputed position that the said institute was closed in the year 2003 since there was derecognition and the new institute, i.e., Uttar Gujarat Viklang Kalyan Sangh, has been granted recognition by the Government with the availability of the grant. But at the time when the recognition was granted to the new institute, the condition was not provided for absorption of the employees of the earlier institute where the appellant-original petitioner was working. 6. It has been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that in the case of one institute at Vadodara, in the year 1993, such condition was provided for absorption of the employees of the earlier grant institute, which was provided grant, at the time when new institute was given recognition with the grant facility. 7. It was also contended that therefore, such a policy on the part of the Government could be said as discriminatory. The Learned Counsel lastly contended that in case of employees of the very institute, one Parmar Bharat Palabhai had preferred Special Civil Application No. 15102/10 and the another learned Single Judge of this Court (Abhilasha Kumari, J.) vide order dated 02.12.2010, has relegated for making representation and the observation is made that the representation shall be considered in accordance with law. He submitted that the appellant-original petitioner herein is also desirous to make representation, but in view of the order of the learned Single Judge, the authority will not be in a position to consider the same even if other job is to be offered in the new institution for which the recognition may be granted by the Government. 8. Whereas Mr. 8. Whereas Mr. Pathak, learned AGP submitted that there is no policy of the Government to extend protection to the employees of the institution which is provided grant and therefore, it was submitted that no right can be read with the appellant as sought to be canvassed. 9. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant is blind, his wife as well as his both sons are also blind and keeping in view the said aspects, the Court may consider the matter sympathetically. 10. It is true that there may not be any policy of the Government for extending protection to the employee of the grant-in-aid institution, but at the same time, if there is simultaneous recognition of a new institution in place of the old institution, the matter can be considered for giving some preference to the employees who have already worked in the earlier institution and they are having experience for the said work. Government cannot ignore the aspect that the majority of the expenses of the staff in case of grant-in-aid institution is being paid from the Government corpus. Therefore, if new institution is to be given recognition, unless there are strong and extraordinary circumstances, the matter can be considered for giving preference to the employees of the earlier institutions at the time when new institution is to appoint its employees. We find it proper not to conclude on the said aspects leaving it to the wisdom of the Government to decide in accordance with law. 11. So far as the present case is concerned, it does appear that there was a gap of about 5 years, and therefore, the employment simultaneously could not have been offered at the time when the new institution was granted recognition. But at the same time, keeping in view the peculiar circumstance that in the family of the appellant-original petitioner, all are blind, i.e., appellant himself, his wife, his both sons, the matter can be sympathetically considered by the Government authority for offering employment to the original petitioner at a new institution which may be granted recognition in future subject to the fulfilment of the requirement by the original petitioner and also of the post in question. 12. 12. Hence, we find that the original petitioner should be relegated to the respondent authority for making representation to consider his case for offering employment as a Craft Teacher in any other institution which are aided by the Government on preferential basis or otherwise keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of his family. Such representation if made within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be examined and appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of three months from the receipt of the representation. It is also observed that at the time when the representation is decided by the authority, any observation made by this Court in the order dated 23.06.2009 passed in Special Civil Application No. 5700/09 by the learned Single Judge shall not come in the way of the authority to consider the matter in accordance with law. 13. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. D.S. permitted. P P P P P