JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned writ-applications are more or less the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, the Special Civil Application No. 4984 of 1999 is treated as the lead matter. 3. By these writ-applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicants, desirous of seeking appointment on the posts of Balguru/Vidya Sahayak/Primary Teacher, have prayed for the following reliefs: "....Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction-- (a) to direct the respondents to fill up all the 1306 vacancies for which recruitment process was initiated in 1997 in the then Kheda District, by giving appointments to all the candidates selected at that time, in order of merits at district level as provided in para 12 of the Vidya Sahayak Scheme G.R. dtd. 11.6.1998; or as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virender S. Hudda v. State of Haryana, (1999)3 SCC 696 ; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, (b) to direct the respondents to follow the same course of action in Kheda District as was followed in Jamnagar and Surendranagar Districts as stated in the decision of Vidya Sahayak Samiti dtd. 18.12.1998, for filling up all the 1306 vacancies by preparing a district level merit list of all the candidates who applied for the posts of Balgurus and making appointments therefrom in order of merits; (c) to restrain the respondents from making any recruitment of Vidya Sahayaks pursuant to the advertisements dtd. 30.4.1999 and 1.5.1999 or even otherwise, without first filling up all the 1306 vacancies by preparing district level merit list as provided in para 12 of Vidya Sahayak Scheme G.R. dtd. 11.6.1998; (d) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to forthwith issue appointment orders as Vidya Sahayaks to the petitioners in accordance with para 12 of Vidya Sahayak Scheme G.R. dtd. 11.6.1998; (d) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to forthwith issue appointment orders as Vidya Sahayaks to the petitioners in accordance with para 12 of Vidya Sahayak Scheme G.R. dtd. 11.6.1998; or as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virender S. Hudda v. State of Haryana, (1999)3 SCC 696 ; (e) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to restrain the respondents from making any new recruitments of Vidya Sahayaks pursuant to the advertisements dtd. 30.4.1999 and 1.5.1999; (f) to grant any other appropriate and just reliefs." 4. The case of the writ-applicants may be summarised as under: The State Government floated a scheme for the purpose of recruitment of Balgurus on the vacant posts of the Primary Teachers by a resolution dated 30th April 1997. The recruitment was to be undertaken at the taluka level and the selection was based on 100% objective criteria. The selection list to the extent of 20% more than the number of Balgurus required was to be prepared and only such number of candidates were required to be called for the oral interview before the Selection Committee in accordance with the recruitment rules. 5. The process of recruitment was initiated in all the talukas of the then Kheda District (now bifurcated into Kheda and Anand Districts) for filling up 1306 vacancies of the Balgurus as under:- Sr. No. Taluka No. of vacancies of Balgurus to be filled up. 1 Anand 203 2 Kapadwanj 150 3 Nadiad 109 4 Matar 97 5 Mehmedabad 44 6 Thasara 119 7 Khambhat 191 8 Patlad 164 9 Borsad 224 Total 1306 6. The advertisements for the said recruitment were issued in the month of May 1997. The writ-applicants applied pursuant to the same. They were called for the oral interview before the Selection Committee on 25th June 1997. They were all selected and placed in the selection list of the concerned taluka. However, no appointment orders were issued to any of the selected candidates in the entire district of Kheda. In the mean time, the scheme of 'Balguru' was replaced by the new scheme of 'Vidya Sahayak' vide the Government Resolution dated 11th June 1998 and the instructions in that regard were issued dated 15th June 1998. However, no appointment orders were issued to any of the selected candidates in the entire district of Kheda. In the mean time, the scheme of 'Balguru' was replaced by the new scheme of 'Vidya Sahayak' vide the Government Resolution dated 11th June 1998 and the instructions in that regard were issued dated 15th June 1998. The new scheme provided that the Balgurus appointed under the Balguru scheme would be regularized as the Vidya Sahayaks under the new scheme. The para 12 of the new scheme reads as under: "12. In case where list is ready after the interview for Balguru, and appointments are not given, in such cases by calling that list at the District level, appointment as Vidya Sahayak shall be given in order of merits at the District level." 7. It is the case of the writ-applicants that they all fall within the scope of the above referred para 12 of the new scheme. According to the writ-applicants, the respondents were duty bound to call all the taluka level selection lists at the district level and thereafter issue appointment orders in order of merit at the district level for filling up all the 1306 vacancies. According to the writ-applicants, for such reason alone, no fresh advertisement for the Vidya Sahayaks was issued in the Kheda and Anand districts. 8. According to the writ-applicants, the respondent No. 1 committed a mistake by not preparing the district level merit list. The respondent No. 1 issued appointment orders according to the taluka level selection list. On account of the same, several candidates received more than one appointment order as their name appeared in the selection list of more than one taluka. Many candidates who received the orders did not join duties as they had already got appointed in other districts by that time. 9. It is the case of the writ-applicants that as a result of the above lapse on the part of the respondent No. 1, only 879 vacancies were actually filled up through the recruitment process initiated for filling up 1306 vacancies. In all, 427 vacancies remained unfilled as under:- Sr. 9. It is the case of the writ-applicants that as a result of the above lapse on the part of the respondent No. 1, only 879 vacancies were actually filled up through the recruitment process initiated for filling up 1306 vacancies. In all, 427 vacancies remained unfilled as under:- Sr. No. Taluka No. of Posts for which recruitment process initiated Posts actually filled up Posts remaining vacant 1 Anand 203 164 39 2 Kapadwanj 155 103 52 3 Nadiad 109 50 59 4 Matar 97 66 31 5 Mehmedabad 45 25 19 6 Thasara 119 71 48 7 Khambhat 191 115 76 8 Petlad 164 107 57 9 Borsad 224 178 46 Total 1306 879 427 10. It is the case of the writ-applicants that they being in the selection list are entitled to be appointed on the vacant 427 posts by virtue of para 12 of the Vidya Sahayak Scheme and also considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Virender S. Hooda v. State of Haryana, (1999)3 SCC 696 . 11. According to the writ-applicants, the Supreme Court in the above referred judgment has taken the view that when some of the selected candidates do not join the services, then the candidate next in the merit should be considered against the vacancies so arisen. 12. According to the writ-applicants, if the respondents would have implemented para 12 of the Vidya Sahayak Scheme in its true perspective, then the merit list at the district level would have been prepared and all the 1036 vacancies could have been filled up and the writ-applicants would also have got appointments. 13. It is their case that they have been wrongly denied the appointments by the respondents in violation of the Vidya Sahayak Scheme. Such action is violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 14. It has been further pointed out that the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 initiated fresh recruitment process by issuing advertisement dated 30th April 1999 and 1st May 1999 respectively for the recruitment of 897 and 684 Vidya Sahayaks respectively. According to the writ-applicants, such decision on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 could be termed as unjust and in derogation of the rights and claims of the writ-applicants. 15. Hence, these writ-applications. 16. Mr. According to the writ-applicants, such decision on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 could be termed as unjust and in derogation of the rights and claims of the writ-applicants. 15. Hence, these writ-applications. 16. Mr. K.B. Pujara, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicants, vehemently submitted that for the serious mistake committed by the respondents, his clients had to pay a very heavy price. They have lost employment for no fault on their part. 17. According to the learned counsel, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 should be held liable for such a lapse and more particularly for flouting the policy decision of the State Government as contained in clause 12 of the Scheme referred to above. 18. Mr. Pujara has placed reliance on one order passed by this Court dated 24th March 1999 in the Special Civil Application No. 10899 of 1998, which reads as under: "Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. Both these petitions involve identical question of law and they are therefore, disposed of by this common order. 3. Rule returnable today. Learned AGP Mr. Garaniya appears for and waives service of rule in each of these petitions on behalf of Respondent State. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appears for and waives service of rule on behalf of rest of the respondents in both these petitions. 4. The petitioners in both these petitions seek appointment as Vidya Sahayak pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 11th June, 1998, as reflected in communication dated 15th June, 1998. Both the petitioners claim that earlier they had applied for the post of Bal Guru in Olpad Taluka and were called for interview and were selected for appointment to the said post. However, the petitioners were not offered appointment as Bal Guru. The petitioners claim that under the above referred resolution, the petitioners have a prior right to appointment as Vidya Sahayak, as a matter of course. 5. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent No. 2 has filed a counter-affidavit and has admitted that the petitioners herein were selected for the post of Balguru but were not offered appointment. It is, however, contended that these facts were not made known to the District Primary Education Officer at the relevant time, and therefore, the petitioners could not be offered appointment as Vidya Sahayak, under the relevant provisions made in the above referred resolution. It is, however, contended that these facts were not made known to the District Primary Education Officer at the relevant time, and therefore, the petitioners could not be offered appointment as Vidya Sahayak, under the relevant provisions made in the above referred resolution. 6. The said resolution provides, inter-alia, that the candidate selected for the post of Balguru, if not appointed at the relevant time, should be offered appointment as Vidya Sahayak, as a matter of course. 7. Petitions are, therefore, allowed. The concerned respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners herein as Vidya Sahayak and to issue suitable posting orders within a period of one month from today. The petitioners will be entitled to due seniority also. Rule issued in each of the petitions is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to send the writ forthwith." 19. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Pujara prays that there being merit in all the writ-applications, they be allowed and an appropriate relief be granted. 20. On the other hand, all the writ-applications have been vehemently opposed by the learned AGP appearing for the State respondents and Mr. Munshaw, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 - District Primary Education Officer. Both the learned counsel submitted that the writ applications are of the year 1999. Almost 17 years have passed by now. There is no question of appointing any of the writ-applicants at this stage on the posts in question. 21. Mr. Munshaw fairly submitted that there was non-compliance of clause 12 of the Scheme referred to above on account of which the writ-applicants could not be appointed although they were selected. According to both the learned counsel the issue is by and large covered by the decision of this Court rendered in the Special Civil Application No. 6476 of 1999 decided on 31st August 1999, which came to be affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1228 of 1999 decided on 17th October 2011. The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 31st August 1999 reads as under: "1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the opinion that this petition cannot be entertained. 2. The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 31st August 1999 reads as under: "1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the opinion that this petition cannot be entertained. 2. In Special Civil Application No. 6055/98 and connected matters decided on 13/8/1998, the Court examined the Vidhya Sahayak Scheme introduced by the State Government and its predecessor scheme being Bal Guru Scheme which was introduced on 30th April 1997. The Court found both the Schemes to be validly framed in furtherance of giving effect to right of education flowing directly from right to life. However, considering the applicant's prayer for filling in the vacancies under the Vidhya Sahayak Scheme out of existing select list by operating the same, the Court observed thus- "In view of the settled legal position of law, no direction can be given to fill up the vacancies by operating the said select list." Having reached this conclusion, considering the consensus on certain issues, the Court gave certain directions which included the constitution of a Committee to implement the Vidhya Sahayak Scheme and to modify the Vidhya Sahayak Scheme suitably to accommodate the candidates in select list of District Education Sammittee and Nagar Sahayak Sammittee with a view to consider them for appointments as Vidhya Sahayaks by granting appropriate relaxations in the age limit. The Court also directed to provide a life of the select list for being considered for giving appointment. 2. It is to be noticed that the Vidhya Sahayak Scheme itself envisages a time limit for operation of select list prepared under it, namely, 1 year. As no time limit has been fixed for operating clause 12 dealing with the select list for appointment of Bal Gurus that has come into existence prior to introduction of the Vidhya Sahayak Scheme, this direction, in my opinion, related only to the existing select list and not to the list which was already made subject to the life of the scheme. 3. The present petition relates to the select list of Bal Gurus for the District of Kheda and the grievance of the petitioners is that the vacancies for appointment already existing, the respondents have issued an advertisement for filling in the posts of Vidhya Sahayaks which is contrary to the scheme as well as directions contained in the aforesaid order. The substance of the contentions raised by Mr. The substance of the contentions raised by Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the advertisement goes to show that there already exists vacancies in Anand district to the extent of 483, out of which 75% was to be fresh appointments and the remaining by transfer from other districts and petitioners may be appointed against such vacancies. This is indirectly seeking the mandamus to operate the existing select list by giving appointments to the petitioners and to restrain the fresh appointments unless the select list is exhausted to the existing vacancies. This relief was clearly denied in the decision aforesaid and cannot, in my opinion, be now again considered indirectly by having reference to the vacancies which were lying unfilled after completion of the first phase of appointment. There is no dispute that the clause 12 of the Vidhya Sahayak Scheme for considering the persons already on the select list for appointment as Bal Guru in the Bal Guru Scheme is not applicable to the second phase of appointments. In the order of the committee constituted under the orders of the Court, it has clearly been stated that the select list of Bal Guru for the district of Kheda [as it was undivided has already been operated for the first phase and therefore, now process is on and the stage is set for the selection and appointment of the second phase under the Vidhya Sahayak Scheme. The advertisement under challenge is also concerning the second phase of appointment under the Vidhya Sahayak Scheme. The petition is accordingly dismissed summarily." 22. The judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal referred to above reads as under: "1. By way of this Appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 31.8.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6476 of 1999, wherein, relying upon the decision rendered in Special Civil Application No. 6055 of 1998 dated 13.8.1998, the learned Single Judge has observed in para-3 as under: "3. The present petition relates to the select list of Bal Gurus for the District of Kheda and the grievance of the petitioners is that the vacancies for appointment already existing, the respondents have issued an advertisement for filling in the posts of Vidhya Sahayaks which is contrary to the scheme as well as directions contained in the aforesaid order. The present petition relates to the select list of Bal Gurus for the District of Kheda and the grievance of the petitioners is that the vacancies for appointment already existing, the respondents have issued an advertisement for filling in the posts of Vidhya Sahayaks which is contrary to the scheme as well as directions contained in the aforesaid order. The substance of the contentions raised by Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the advertisement goes to show that there already exists vacancies in Anand district to the extent of 483, out of which 75% was to be fresh appointments and the remaining by transfer from other districts and petitioners may be appointed against such vacancies. This is indirectly seeking the mandamus to operate the existing select list by giving appointments to the petitioners and to restrain the fresh appointments unless the select list is exhausted to the existing vacancies. This relief was clearly denied in the decision aforesaid and cannot, in my opinion, be now again considered indirectly by having reference to the vacancies which were lying unfilled after completion of the first phase of appointment. There is no dispute that the clause 12 of the Vidhya Sahayak Scheme for considering the persons already on the select list for appointment as Bal Guru in the Bal Guru Scheme is not applicable to the second phase of appointments. In the order of the committee constituted under the orders of the Court, it has clearly been stated that the select list of Bal Guru for the district of Kheda [as it was undivided] has already been operated for the first phase and therefore, now process is on and the stage is set for the selection and appointment of the second phase under the Vidhya Sahayak Scheme. The advertisement under challenge is also concerning the second phase of appointment under the Vidhya Sahayak Scheme." 2. In our view, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is just and proper in view of the fact that the waiting list is already exhausted and it will not be proper to revive the dead horse. Thus, the Appeal is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed." 23. Both the learned counsel have also placed reliance on the averments made in the affidavits-in-reply which are on record. Thus, the Appeal is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed." 23. Both the learned counsel have also placed reliance on the averments made in the affidavits-in-reply which are on record. According to both the learned counsel there being no merit in any of the writ-applications, they be rejected. 24. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is, whether the writ-applicants are entitled to any reliefs as prayed for in the writ-applications. 25. At the outset, let me make myself very clear that the two decisions on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondents are of no avail. It is difficult for me to accept the argument that the issue is covered. Therefore, the two decisions, one, of the learned Single Judge, and the another, of the Division Bench in appeal, are hardly of any consequence so far as the case in hand is concerned. 26. I take notice of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13th August 1998 rendered in the Special Civil Application No. 5218 of 1998 and allied matters. The learned Single Judge considered many aspects like (i) Mismanagement and Introduction of Schemes, (ii) Main Criticism, (iii) Balguru Scheme - 1947, (iv) Primary Education in State, (v) Balguru Scheme - 1997 at the Taluka Level and Nagarpalikas, and (vi) Vidya Sahayak Scheme. 27. After exhaustive consideration of all the relevant aspects, the learned Single Judge recorded as under: "CONSENSUS: 15. Thus, effort was made to evolve consensus to deal with the problem. There is positive response from one and all. Mr. P.G. Desai, learned Government Pleader has placed on record copy of the letter dated 1.8.1998. from the Department of Education, Government of Gujarat informing the following decisions taken by the Government. On consideration of suggestion made during the course of hearing of the present Special Civil Applications. "(1) Government will get details from District Education Committees and Nagar Shikshan Samitis regarding select list of teachers prepared during the period 1989-1996 and Government is agreeable to consider them if they apply for the same. (2) In case of Balgurus who were interviewed and select list were prepared but appointments not given. Government will implement provision of Para 12 of GR dated 11.6.1998. Government is agreeable not to operate the "select list" of Balgurus. (2) In case of Balgurus who were interviewed and select list were prepared but appointments not given. Government will implement provision of Para 12 of GR dated 11.6.1998. Government is agreeable not to operate the "select list" of Balgurus. If the High Court so directs. Orders of Balgurus who were appointed but did not resume their duties can also be cancelled. (3) Government is agreeable to form a Committee at State level under the Chairmanship of Deputy Director of Primary Education which can meet every week and give decisions on routine matters arising out of appointment of Vidhya Sahayaks so that the candidates do not have to approach Hon'ble High Court for administrative problems. (4) Government will not make any appointments of Vidhya Sahayaks till the Court permits." DIRECTIONS: 16. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case the following directions are given:- (1) The State Government is directed to suitably modify vidhya Sahayak Scheme to incorporate provision. With a view to accommodate the candidates in the "Select list" of District Education Committee and Nagar Shikshan Samitis with a view to consider them for appointment as "Vidhya Sahayaks". Appropriate provisions shall be made for relaxation of age limit. (2) The government shall constitute a single member or multi member Committee as it deems proper, at the State level under the Chairmanship of the Officer not below the rank of Special Secretary or Joint Secretary to deal with and take effective decision on the complaints with respect to implementation of the "Vidhya Sahayak Scheme". The Committee will meet at least once a week at the Scheduled time and place to hear such complaints. Directions given by such Committee will be of binding nature on all concerned. The Committee will not necessarily require to follow rigid procedure except following the principle of natural justice to the extent possible. The Committee will also monitor effective implementation of the Vidhya Sahayak Scheme so as to ensure that the entire process of appointment is complete by the end of September, 1998 time already fixed by the Government. It will be open for the committee to adopt appropriate strategies to achieve the object including issuing oral instructions and collecting oral information depending upon the exigencies. The life of the Committee shall be initially for a period of three months from the date of its constitution. It will be open for the committee to adopt appropriate strategies to achieve the object including issuing oral instructions and collecting oral information depending upon the exigencies. The life of the Committee shall be initially for a period of three months from the date of its constitution. (3) All the Civil Courts in the State of Gujarat are restrained from entertaining any suit and/or granting injunction in the matter of appointment of Vidhya Sahayaks, for a period ending 31.3.1999. (4) The remedy before the said Committee shall be considered as an effective alternative remedy for the purpose of petition before this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. (5) The respondents will also provide the life of the select list. (6) While determining the vacancies, future vacancy shall not be included and they will be left for the next year's selection. (7) Appropriate publicity shall be given with respect to the constitution of the Committee and amendment of Vidhya Sahayak Scheme with respect to the provisions for appointment from the select list of 1989-1996 referred to above. (8) The validity of "Balguru" as well as "Vidhya Sahayak" Scheme has been considered in this group of Special Civil Application and therefore it will not be open for any party to raise any contention it that regard before the said Committee. (9) No appointment under "Vidhya Sahayak Scheme" shall be made till such a clearance is given by the Committee referred to above. The Committee before giving such direction will wait for a reasonable time so that if anybody has any grievance the same may be considered by the Committee. (10) The petitioners in each petition are relegated to the remedy before the Committee referred to above. (11) Rule made partly absolutely in each Special Civil Application to the aforesaid extent." 28. It is not in dispute that clause 12 as referred to above was not complied with and I am at one with Mr. Pujara that if the clause 12 would have been applied in its true perspective, then all the 1306 seats could have been filled up at the district level and each of the writ-applicants probably would have been appointed. 29. The lapse on the part of the concerned authority proved to be very detrimental to the interest of the writ-applicants. Pujara that if the clause 12 would have been applied in its true perspective, then all the 1306 seats could have been filled up at the district level and each of the writ-applicants probably would have been appointed. 29. The lapse on the part of the concerned authority proved to be very detrimental to the interest of the writ-applicants. All other districts scrupulously complied with the direction as contained in clause 12, but for the reasons best known to the authority concerned, it is only in the Kheda district that the same was completely flouted. 30. The only problem at this stage is the time factor. Whether any relief should be granted to the writ-applicants of any nature after a period of 17 years? Answering this question is also not very difficult because the right of any litigant would relate to the date on which the cause of action arose for him to come to the Court and, therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to say that since many years have passed no relief should be granted. 31. I inquired with Mr. Munshaw, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 as regards the current status so far as the vacancies in the districts of Kheda and Anand is concerned. According to Mr. Munshaw, over a period of time, by and large each of the writ-applicants might have been appointed as the Vidya Sahayaks. However, he is not in a position to make any positive statement in that regard, neither he was in a position to collect the necessary information. In my view, the issue should not go un-redressed. The State Government owes a duty in this regard. In such circumstances, I direct the State of Gujarat to immediately look into the matter and do the needful in accordance with law at the earliest. If any of the writ-applicants are in employment today, i.e. serving as the Vidya Sahayaks, then it is altogether different but, those who could not make it because of the lapse on the part of the concerned authority, then having regard to the vacancies existing as on date in the two districts, all possible endeavours shall be made to see that they are accommodated. Let an appropriate decision in this regard be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 32. Let an appropriate decision in this regard be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 32. All the writ-applications are, accordingly, disposed of.