JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. Since the issues involved in both the captioned writ applications are more or less the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. For the sake of convenience the Special Civil Application No. 3206 of 1999 is treated as the lead matter. 2. The writ applicants before me have prayed for the following reliefs invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. "10 (a) To hold and declare that the petitioners are entitled to be appointed as Vidhya Sahayaks under the respondents as they have been duly selected and place in the selection list prepared on 04.08.1998 which is operative for one year that is upto 04.09.1999, And as large number of vacancies are available under the respondent; (b) To direct the respondents to operate the selection list of Vidhya Sahayaks prepared pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.06.1998 at Annexure 'A' and the interviews held on 03.08.1998 and 04.08.1998, for filling up all the vacancies presently available and all the vacancies that may arise upto 04.08.1999 on which date the selection list would expire; (c) To restrain the respondents from initiating any fresh process of recruitment of Vidhya Sahayaks unless and until all the vacancies available under the respondents at present as also all the vacancies that may arise hereafter upto 04.09.1999 are filled up by operating the select list prepared pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.06.1998 at Annexure 'A' or until 04.09.1999, whichever is earlier; (d) To quash and set aside the impugned circular dated 08.02.1999 issued by the respondent No. 2 in so far as it directs the respondent No. 1 to initiate second phase of recruitment for filling up the vacancies available under the respondent No. 1 even though the selection list of Vidhya Sahayaks prepared pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.06.1998 at Ann. A is operative upto 04.09.1999; (e) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, be pleased to restrain the respondents from initiating the fresh process of recruitment of Vidhya Sahayaks unless and until the selection list prepared pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.06.1998 at Annexure 'A' is fully exhausted by giving appointments to the candidates therein on the vacancies presently available as also on the vacancies that may arise hereinafter upto 04.08.1999, or until 04.08.1999 on which date the said selection list expires, whichever is earlier; (f) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay further operation of the impugned Circular dated 08.02.1999 issued by the respondent No. 2 as per Ann. 'E' unless and until the petitioners whose names are appearing in the selection list prepared pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.06.1998 at Ann. 'A' are issued appointment order; (g) To grant any other appropriate and just relief/s'." 3. The facts of the case may be summarized as under:-- 3.1. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 belong to the General category, the petitioners Nos. 7 to 19 belong to the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC - Baxi Panch), the petitioners Nos. 20 also belong to the SEBC category and the petitioners Nos. 21 and 22 belong to the Scheduled Castes. All the petitioners, except the petitioner No. 20 have passed the SSC - PTC examination or B.A., B.Ed. examination. The petitioner No. 20 has passed his SSC and C.P. Ed., examination. The State Government floated a scheme of recruitment of the Vidhya Sahayaks on the vacant posts of the primary teachers by a Government Resolution dated 11.06.1998. The respondent No. 2 - Director of Primary Education, issued instructions dated 15.06.1998 and allocated the vacancies in each of the Districts. It was found that in the Patan District there were 819 vacancies, out of which 614 posts were to be filled up by recruitment of Vidhya Sahayaks and 205 posts were to be filled up by inter-district transfer. So far as the connected writ application is concerned of the Mehsana District, it was found that there were 923 vacancies, out of which 700 posts were to be filled up by recruitment of Vidhya Sahayaks and 233 posts were to be filled up by inter-district transfer. 3.2. So far as the connected writ application is concerned of the Mehsana District, it was found that there were 923 vacancies, out of which 700 posts were to be filled up by recruitment of Vidhya Sahayaks and 233 posts were to be filled up by inter-district transfer. 3.2. The respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement dated 25.06.1998, for preparing a select list of the estimated vacancies referred to above so far as both the Districts are concerned. The petitioners being eligible and qualified applied for the same along with their original certificates and mark-sheets as stipulated in the advertisement. The petitioners were called for the interview before the Selection Committee on 03.08.1998 and 04.08.1998 respectively by call letters dated 25.07.1998. They all were interviewed and selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee. It is the case of the petitioners that the selection list was not placed on the notice board nor any written communication was issued to the petitioners. However, they all were informed orally by the respondent No. 1 that they had been selected and that their original certificates and mark-sheets were being retained with a view to issue the appointment orders. It is the case of the petitioners that so far as the other candidates are concerned who were called for the interview or who were not selected were handed over their original certificates and mark-sheets. On 09.04.1999, the respondent No. 1 issued communications which are at Annexure-C collectively whereby for the first time, the petitioners were informed that they should come and collect their original certificates and mark-sheets as they had not been selected as Vidhya Sahayaks. 3.3. Hence, the two petitions. 4. It appears that earlier both the writ applications were ordered to be rejected with a liberty to the petitioners for revival of the same in case of difficulty by filing a simple note. The order dated 29.04.1999 reads as under:-- "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. First the petitioners may file a detailed representation in respect of their grievances as made in this special civil application to the Director of Primary Education, Government of Gujarat at Gandhinagar and the Director of Primary Education is directed to decide the same within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the same. First the petitioners may file a detailed representation in respect of their grievances as made in this special civil application to the Director of Primary Education, Government of Gujarat at Gandhinagar and the Director of Primary Education is directed to decide the same within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the same. Where the grievances of the petitioners are acceptable then they may be given the appointment on the post of Vidhyasahayaks and in case where their grievances are not acceptable, then the Director concerned may pass a reasoned order and copy of the same may be sent to the petitioners by registered post A.D.. Subject to the aforesaid directions, this special civil application is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioners for revival of the same in case of difficulty by filing a simple note." 4.1. It appears that as the representations filed by the petitioners were not accepted both the writ applications were revived. Unfortunately, both these petitions of the year 1999 were taken up for hearing after seventeen years i.e. on 20.01.2016. On 20.01.2016, the following order was passed:-- "These petitions concern appointment to the posts of Vidya Sahayaks in Patan and Mehsana districts respectively. We may refer to the figures arising in Special Civil Application No. 3206 of 1999 concerning Patan district. The petitioners had applied for 614 notified vacancies for such posts. Their original certificates and documents were called by the respondents. However, on or around 09.04.1999, the original documents of these candidates were returned with intimation that they are not being selected, upon which they have filed these petitions. 2. Learned counsel Shri K.B. Pujara for the petitioners drew my attention to Circular dated 08.02.1999 issued by the Director of Primary Education, in which it is provided that fresh round of selection for the posts of Vidya Sahayaks may be undertaken after exhausting existing vacancies or wait list, whichever happens first. He also drew my attention to page 106 of the compilation, which is annexure to the affidavit in reply filed by the District Panchayat in which for Patan district, 370 existing vacancies have been shown which forms part of total 515 vacancies to be filled through fresh selection process. 3. I have perused the contents of the affidavit in reply in which it is stated to the effect that all 614 vacancies were filled up. 3. I have perused the contents of the affidavit in reply in which it is stated to the effect that all 614 vacancies were filled up. No candidate higher in merit than any of the petitioners was appointed. The petitioners, whose names were in the wait list, could not be accommodated against such vacancies. 4. Learned counsel Shri Pujara however, submitted that by mere issuance of appointment orders vacancies do not get filled up unless the candidate who has been offered appointment accepts such offer. He submitted that reference to filling up 614 vacancies is only to issuance of appointment order and not to the appointees accepting such offers, failing which the authorities would not have shown as many as 370 existing vacancies. 5. These issues require clarification. Let the District Panchayat Administration file further reply clarifying whether as stated in the affidavit in reply all 614 vacancies were actually filled up at the relevant time or mere appointment orders were issued and if so, how many candidates did not accept appointments. The deponent shall also state whether wait list was operated and if so, how many wait listed candidates were issued such appointments. Number of 370 existing vacancies shown in the Chart (page 106) shall also be explained. 6. These directions will apply mutatis mutandis to other petitioners concerning Mehsana district. Affidavit be filed within two weeks. The petitions be placed for hearing t hereafter." 4.2. It appears that thereafter on 23.03.2016, the following order was passed:-- "In view of the order dated 20.01.2016 passed by this Court (Coram: Akil Kureshi, J), the District Panchayat, Administration was directed to file an affidavit within two weeks from the date of the order. But, it appears that the District Panchayat, Administration has not filed affidavit till today. As a last chance, the time to file an affidavit is extended for further period of two weeks from today, otherwise, the matter be proceeded further without any affidavit." 4.3. Thereafter, on 07.04.2016, the following order was passed:-- "In view of the order dated 23rd March, 2016, the District Panchayat has to file affidavit within two weeks from the date of order. But till date, no affidavit is filed by the District Panchayat. As a last chance, further two weeks weeks time is granted to file affidavit to the District Panchayat, Administration. Registry is directed to list the matter after three weeks." 4.4. But till date, no affidavit is filed by the District Panchayat. As a last chance, further two weeks weeks time is granted to file affidavit to the District Panchayat, Administration. Registry is directed to list the matter after three weeks." 4.4. Despite giving sufficient time and opportunity to clarify certain aspects as they were found to be necessary, reply has not been filed till this date. Thus, we are back to square one, i.e. the position which was prevailing on 20.01.2016. Mr. Pujara, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the entire stance of the respondents is falsified by their own documents. Mr. Pujara submitted that after filing of the two writ applications, fresh advertisements were issued for the purpose of recruitment of Vidhya Sahayaks. According to him, his clients could have even applied pursuant to the subsequent advertisement, provided, they were informed well in advance that they were not selected. He further pointed out that his clients remained under the impression all throughout that they had been selected because all of their credentials were retained by the authority concerned. He further pointed out that one of the petitioners i.e. the petitioner No. 21 in the meantime was offered employment somewhere else, but since all his credentials were lying with the authority concerned, he had to give up the said employment. He further submitted that even otherwise, his clients could not have applied pursuant to the second advertisement because all the documents were in the custody of the authority concerned. The authority for the first time asked the petitioners to take away their original documents on 09.04.1999. Soon thereafter, the present two writ applications were filed and later on fresh advertisements were issued i.e. on 01.05.1999. 4.5. The principal argument of Mr. Pujara is that out of 600 posts which were to be filled up in the Patan District, a select list of 720 candidates was prepared, but out of the list of 720 candidates, 370 posts remained unfilled. He further pointed out that so far as the Mehsana District is concerned, out of 700 posts which were advertised, a list of 840 candidates was prepared and almost 68 posts remained unfilled. Mr. He further pointed out that so far as the Mehsana District is concerned, out of 700 posts which were advertised, a list of 840 candidates was prepared and almost 68 posts remained unfilled. Mr. Pujara thereafter invited my attention to the letter dated 30.03.1999 which is at page 104 Annexure-H to this petition, wherein, the Deputy Director of Primary Education informed all the District Primary Education Officers that they should first fill up all available vacancies of the first round of recruitment and only thereafter they should proceed to issue fresh advertisement. However, such directions were ignored and without filling up the unfilled vacancies, fresh advertisements were issued and recruitment was undertaken. Mr. Pujara submitted that his clients have suffered irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money because they lost the other employments which were available to them in the hope that they had already been selected as their credentials were retained by the authority concerned. Mr. Pujara the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that having regard to the stance of the other side, law is well settled. He submitted that the wait list would come into operation provided all the candidates on the select list are offered appointments and some of those may not turn up or may resign after accepting the appointments. However, if all the posts are filled up, then there is no question of operating the wait list. Mr. Pujara further pointed out that it was understood that as against 600 and 700 posts which were advertised 20% more were to be included in the select list, that means as against 600 post 720 and as against 700 posts 840. He submitted that the stance of the other side is absurd because they are treating 20% as a wait list. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sat Pal reported in AIR 2013 SC 1258 , wherein the Apex Court observed in para 11, 12 and 13 as under:-- "11. In view of the factual position noticed hereinabove, the reason indicated by the appellants in declining the claim of the respondent Sat Pal for appointment out of the waiting list is clearly unjustified. A waiting list would start to operate only after the posts for which the recruitment is conducted, have been completed. In view of the factual position noticed hereinabove, the reason indicated by the appellants in declining the claim of the respondent Sat Pal for appointment out of the waiting list is clearly unjustified. A waiting list would start to operate only after the posts for which the recruitment is conducted, have been completed. A waiting list would commence to operate, when offers of appointment have been issued to those emerging on the top of the merit list. The existence of a waiting list, allows room to the appointing authority to fill up vacancies which arise during the subsistence of the waiting list. A waiting list commences to operate, after the vacancies for which the recruitment process has been conducted have been filled up. In the instant controversy the aforesaid situation for operating the waiting list had not arisen, because one of the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II for which the recruitment process was conducted was actually never filled up. For the reason that Trilok Nath had not assumed charge, one of the posts for which the process of recruitment was conducted, had remained vacant. That apart, even if it is assumed for arguments sake, that all the posts for which the process of selection was conducted were duly filled up, it cannot be disputed that Trilok Nath who had participated in the same selection process as the respondent herein, was offered appointment against the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II on 22.4.2008. The aforesaid offer was made, consequent upon his selection in the said process of recruitment. The validity of the waiting list, in the facts of this case, has to be determined with reference to 22.4.2008, because the vacancy was offered to Trilok Nath on 22.4.2008. It is the said vacancy, for which the respondent had approached the High Court. As against the aforesaid, it is the acknowledged position recorded by the appellants in the impugned order dated 23.8.2011 (extracted above), that the waiting list was valid till May, 2008. If Trilok Nath was found eligible for appointment against the vacancy in question out of the same waiting list, the respondent herein would be equally eligible for appointment against the said vacancy. This would be the unquestionable legal position, insofar as the present controversy is concerned. 12. If Trilok Nath was found eligible for appointment against the vacancy in question out of the same waiting list, the respondent herein would be equally eligible for appointment against the said vacancy. This would be the unquestionable legal position, insofar as the present controversy is concerned. 12. The date of filing of the representation by the parties concerned and/or the date on which the competent authority chooses to fill up the vacancy in question, is of no consequence whatsoever. The only relevant date is the date of arising of the vacancy. It would be a different legal proposition, if the appointing authority decides not to fill up an available vacancy, despite the availability of candidates on the waiting list. The offer made to Trilok Nath on 22.4.2008 by itself, leads to the inference that the vacancy under reference arose within the period of one year, i.e., during the period of validity of the waiting list postulated by the rules. The offer of the vacancy to Trilok Nath, negates the proposition posed above, i.e., the desire of the employer not to fill up the vacancy. Herein, the appellants wished to fill up the vacancy under reference. Moreover, this is not a case where the respondent was seeking appointment against a vacancy, over and above the posts for which the process of selection/recruitment was conducted. Based on the aforesaid inference, we have no hesitation in concluding that the appellants ought to have appointed the respondent Sat Pal, against the vacancy which was offered to Trilok Nath. 13. The issue arising for consideration herein, has already been adjudicated upon by this Court. In the first instance reference may be made to the decision rendered by this Court in Virender S. Hooda v. State of Haryana, (1999) 3 SCC 696 : ( AIR 1999 SC 1701 : 1999 AIR SCW 1327). In the instant case administrative instructions envisaged, that vacancies which came into existence within six months of the date of recommendation by the Public Service Commission, could be filled up from the earlier process of selection. The observations made by this Court on the instant issue, in the aforesaid background, are being extracted below: "?..The fact that there were further vacancies available and when 9 vacancies were advertised to be filled up within a period of six months after announcement of the previous selection cannot be disputed at all. The observations made by this Court on the instant issue, in the aforesaid background, are being extracted below: "?..The fact that there were further vacancies available and when 9 vacancies were advertised to be filled up within a period of six months after announcement of the previous selection cannot be disputed at all. In terms of the circulars issued by the Government on 22.3.1957 and 26.5.1972 when such vacancies arise within six months from the receipt of the recommendation of the Public Service Commission they have to be filled up out of the waiting list maintained by the Commission. In respect of the vacancies which arise after the expiry of six months it is necessary to send the requisition to the Commission. It is also made clear that if the Commission makes recommendations regarding a post to the Department and additional vacancies occur in the Department within a period of six months on the receipt of the recommendations, then the vacancies which occur later on can be filled in from amongst the additional candidates recommended by the Commission. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that letter dated 7.1.1992 indicated that the cadre strength in the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) was 440 and the officers filling these posts were around 129 and there was a shortfall of 111 and 23 posts had to be filled up by direct recruitment. Thus 12 posts for direct recruitment were vacant when the advertisement for recruitment was made which was held in 1991. Therefore, the appellants' case ought to have been considered when some of the vacancies arose by reason of non-appointment of some of the candidates. Therefore, the Government ought to have considered the case of the appellants as per the rank obtained by them and the appellants had to be appointed if they came within the range of selection. Thus when these vacancies arise within the period of six months from the date of previous selection the circulars are attracted and hence the view of the High Court that vacancies arose after selection process commenced has no relevance and is contrary to the declared policy of the Government in the matter to fill up such posts from the waiting list." This Court has also considered the same issue wherein there were no rules/administrative instructions for filling up vacancies from the waiting list. While examining the aforesaid issue this Court in Mukul Saikia v. State of Assam, (2009) 1 SCC 386 : ( AIR 2009 SC 747 : 2008 AIR SCW 7971), held as under: "At the outset it should be noticed that the select list prepared by APSC could be used to fill the notified vacancies and not future vacancies. If the requisition and advertisement was only for 27 posts, the State cannot appoint more than the number of posts advertised, even though APSC had prepared a select list of 64 candidates. The select list got exhausted when all the 27 posts were filled. Thereafter, the candidates below the 27 appointed candidates have no right to claim appointment to any vacancy in regard to which selection was not held. The fact that evidently and admittedly the names of the appellants appeared in the select list dated 17.7.2000 below the persons who have been appointed on merit against the said 27 vacancies, and as such they could not have been appointed in excess of the number of posts advertised as the currency of select list had expired as soon as the number of posts advertised are filled up, therefore, appointment beyond the number of posts advertised would amount to filling up future vacancies meant for direct candidates in violation of quota rules. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to claim any relief for themselves. The question that remains for consideration is whether there is any ground for challenging the regularisation of the private respondents." The determination rendered by this Court in the aforesaid judgments, substantiates the view expressed by us in the foregoing paragraphs." 4.6. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Pujara prays that time has come to set the things right and justice could be said to have been done only if they are appointed as the Vidhya Sahayaks. 5. On the other hand, the writ applications have been vehemently opposed by Mr. Munshaw, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. Mr. Munshaw has placed strong reliance on the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, duly affirmed by the District Primary Education Officer, Patan District. "4. 5. On the other hand, the writ applications have been vehemently opposed by Mr. Munshaw, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. Mr. Munshaw has placed strong reliance on the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, duly affirmed by the District Primary Education Officer, Patan District. "4. It is most respectfully submitted that the respondent herein was initially directed by the respondent No. 2 through telephonic message and instructed to fill up in all 614 posts of Primary School Teachers and it was also instructed that the detailed letter would be forwarded later on, but the recruitment procedure should be initiated and accordingly an advertisement was issued for approximately 600 posts in the newspaper dated 23.06.1998 and thereafter a letter was received on 13th October, 1998. It is stated that out of the said 614 posts, 544 posts were to be filled up through P.T.C., trained teachers, 29 posts through C.P. Ed., trained teacher, 25 posts through A.T.D., trained teachers and 14 posts through Music Teachers. A copy of the order dated 11th June, 1998 issued by the Director of Primary Education, State of Gujarat is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A to this reply. A copy of the advertisement dated 23rd June, 1998 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-B to this reply. It is pertinent to note that all the posts are to be filled up purely on the basis of merits and the interviews were held on for verification of the mark sheets, certificates etc., and not for any other purpose. It is stated that after receipt of the applications from the candidates and verification thereof, the select/wait lists were prepared on the basis of the merits alone. It is stated that the select list of 614 posts and a wait list of 20% of the said posts was prepared so that if the selected candidates do not join the service, the said wait list can be operated. The respondent No. 1 states that the posts were to be filled up through the candidates belonging to different categories i.e. Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC), Physically Handicapped and General category. The respondent No. 1 states that the posts were to be filled up through the candidates belonging to different categories i.e. Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC), Physically Handicapped and General category. The respondent No. 1 carves leave to annex herewith a statement showing the total number of posts to be filled up in different subjects including the P.T.C., C.P. Ed., A.T.D., Music as well as the seats for the General category, Scheduled Caste category, Scheduled Tribe category, SEBC category, Physically Handicapped category etc., as Annexure-C to this reply. 5. It is stated that after the interview calls, select/waiting lists were prepared and operated fro different classes of categories to fill up the said 614 posts as mentioned hereinabove. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that out of 614 posts, 2 posts were to be filled up as per directions of Vidhya Sahayak Committee and 610 posts were filled up by the respondent No. 1 - District Panchayat. It is stated two posts of A.T.D., teachers could not be filled up as one candidate belonging to General category and one candidate belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Class were not available. The respondent No. 1 carves leave to state that the Vidhya Sahayak Committed headed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Education Department, Gandhinagar was constituted by the State Government pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat through order dated 13.08.1998 passed in Special Civil Application No. 5128 of 1998 and others, copies of directed issued by the Vidhya Sahayak Committed as well as the Government Resolution dated 01.09.1998 constituting the Committee are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-D and E respectively. 6. The respondent No. 1 submits that all 610 posts were filled up in different branches namely P.T.C., trained teachers, C.P. Ed., trained teachers, A.T.D., trained teachers and Music teachers from different categories namely General category, Scheduled Caste category, Scheduled Tribe category, SEBC category, Physically Handicapped category and a statement showing marks given to the last number of the candidate in each of the branches belonging to different categories is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-F to this reply. 7. It is stated that as against the appointed teachers, the present petitioners have secured less number of marks and as they were at lower position in the select/wait list, they could not be appointed. 7. It is stated that as against the appointed teachers, the present petitioners have secured less number of marks and as they were at lower position in the select/wait list, they could not be appointed. It is submitted that not a single candidate having secured less marks than the present petitioners is appointed as the advertised posts are totally filled up, the petitioners have no opportunity for the appointment as per several judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, However, to make the point clear the respondent No. 1 may be permitted to annex herewith a statement showing details of the merits and qualifications of the petitioners herein as Annexure-G to this reply. 8. It is further submitted that thereafter another round of recruitment was commenced by way of issuing a fresh advertisement on 01.05.1999 inviting applications from qualified teachers to fill up in all 377 posts as per the instructions of the Director, Primary Education, Government of Gujarat. It is submitted that thereafter, there are number of rounds for recruitment of Vidhya Sahayaks from time to time. The respondent No. 1 submits that considering these facts, the petitioners who are on the waiting list have no right of appointment against the posts advertised and filled up through subsequent recruitment drive. It is stated that even the Director of Primary Education, State of Gujarat has also given instruction to that effect and a copy of the said instructions issued by the Director, Primary Education, State of Gujarat through a letter dated 30.03.1999 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-H." 5.1. Mr. Munshaw tried his best to salvage the situation by making submissions and clarifying things, which this Court wanted in the form of an affidavit-in-reply. There are many issues which are not clarified and for that purpose opportunity was being granted to file reply. Unfortunately, the reply is not there. In such circumstances, I am left only with the first reply which is on record. 5.2. The principal argument of Mr. Munshaw is that all the seats which were advertised were filled up and, therefore, the argument of Mr. Pujara is not correct. This submission of Mr. Munshaw on the face of the document which is at page 106 gets falsified. 5.2. The principal argument of Mr. Munshaw is that all the seats which were advertised were filled up and, therefore, the argument of Mr. Pujara is not correct. This submission of Mr. Munshaw on the face of the document which is at page 106 gets falsified. The statement which is at page 106 makes the picture abundantly clear that all the seats were not filled up. If such is the stance of the other side, it is something contrary to the documentary evidence. Why should I hear the other side further. Mr. Munshaw, the learned counsel further submitted that additional 20% of the advertised posts were treated as a wait list with the idea that if any of the selected candidates do not join the services, the wait list would operate. This submission is again without any basis and more particularly, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Satpal (supra). I fail to understand from where this concept has been introduced that the additional 20% has to be treated as a wait list. What is a wait list? The concept of wait list is quite different. Let me go back to the observations made by the coordinate Bench in para 4 while passing the order dated 20.01.2016. At the cost of repetition, I may once again quote para 4:-- "4. Learned counsel Shri Pujara however, submitted that by mere issuance of appointment orders vacancies do not get filled up unless the candidate who has been offered appointment accepts such offer. He submitted that reference to filling up 614 vacancies is only to issuance of appointment order and not to the appointees accepting such offers, failing which the authorities would not have shown as many as 370 existing vacancies." 5.3. This is what was required to be clarified, which unfortunately the other side has failed to do so. There is no explanation why fresh advertisements were issued without exhausting the unfilled vacancies. It is a matter of common sense that if all the unfilled seats would have been filled up then probably the petitioners could also have been included and they could also have been offered appointment. It is not correct on the part of the respondent No. 1 to say that the petitioners were lower in position and that too in the wait list. It is not correct on the part of the respondent No. 1 to say that the petitioners were lower in position and that too in the wait list. I am sorry to say that the District Primary Education Officer, Patan District Panchayat has gone to the extent of making incorrect statements on oath. I would term them as reckless statements made without any responsibility. What was informed by the Director, Primary Education vide letter dated 30.03.1999, referred to above, the very same thing was reiterated by him earlier in point of time also i.e. on 08.02.1999. The document at page 58 Annexure-E which is a communication by the Director makes the picture further clear. 6. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I am left with no other option, but to allow both the writ applications. They are accordingly allowed. The respondent No. 2 - Director, Primary Education, is directed to immediately look into the matter and in view of the observations made in this judgment, issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned to appoint the petitioners on the posts in question. Let this exercise be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of writ of this order. 7. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in both the writ applications. While giving appointments, the authority concerned shall keep in mind the principle explained by the Apex Court in the case of Satpal (supra). The offering of the appointments will relate back to the permissible date contemplated under the Rules, laying down the conditions of service of the cadre.