JUDGMENT : S.G. SHAH, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara for the petitioner and Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents. Perused the record. 2. I have no option but to record in the beginning itself that this is a gross case of clear arbitrariness and discrimination on the part of the respondent which has resulted into multiple litigations when State has tried to drive the clock in reverse direction once they noticed their misdeeds. Though, it is a case of clear arbitrariness and discrimination amongst equally situated candidates, State has tried its level best to get rid of any direction against them mainly on two grounds viz; (1) delay in approaching the Court and (2) upper age limit of the petitioner at the time of applying for the post. 3. It is undisputed fact that an open interview was held on 18.2.2005 for two posts of Ashram Shala teachers under the respondent No.4 – the school management wherein present petitioner and one Mr. Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar were duly selected and, therefore, respondent No. 4 has sought for approval for their appointment from the department i.e. respondent nos.1 to 3. 4. Unfortunately, though respondent No.2 has granted approval for the appointment of one of the candidate viz. Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar who was aged about 32 years at the relevant time, declined to grant approval for the appointment of the present petitioner who was aged about 28 years only at the relevant time, on the erroneous ground of age bar. Therefore, petitioner has made representation to the respondent requesting them to rectify their error. Unfortunately, instead of rectifying their error by granting approval for the appointment of the petitioner, the respondent authorities have terminated the services of Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar. Therefore, said Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar has challenged his termination by filing Special Civil Application No.26722 of 2007. Surprisingly, pending said petition, the respondent No.2 himself granted approval for appointment of five other Ashram Shala Teachers on 13.5.2008 again including the name of said Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar specifically disclosing that there was no upper age limit provided in the rule for such appointment. Surprisingly, pending said petition, the respondent No.2 himself granted approval for appointment of five other Ashram Shala Teachers on 13.5.2008 again including the name of said Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar specifically disclosing that there was no upper age limit provided in the rule for such appointment. Even at the cost of repetition, it is to be recollected here that while doing so, respondents have failed to realize that if approval of five teachers including Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar is granted, then, there is no harm or bar or restriction to appoint even present petitioner also who was younger than Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar. But unfortunately, even after approval of five teachers including Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar with specific disclosure that there was no upper limit for such appointment, the approval for petitioner’s appointment was not granted. This specifically goes to show that respondents are acting arbitrarily and are clearly discriminating between similarly situated candidates for the same posts. 5. Therefore, petitioner has no option but to prefer Special Civil Application No.7270 of 2011 agitating the arbitrariness and discrimination perpetrated by the respondent and to refuse to appoint him as Ashram Shala teacher even after his repeated representation. In such Special Civil Application No.7270 of 2011 by judgment and order dated 28.6.2011, this Hon’ble Court has directed the respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s case in light of the provisions of law and rule but respondent No.2 has remained adamant and passed another order on 10.12.2011 again refusing to grant approval to appoint the present petitioner on the ground that age of the petitioner is higher than the prescribed age for the posts in question. Again, at the cost of repetition, it is to be recollected here that for similarly situated candidate viz; Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar respondents have already granted approval for his appointment though his age was more than the present petitioner i.e. 32 years at the relevant time. The circular confirming that there is no upper age limit and confirming the appointment of Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar is produced at Annexure ‘J’ (Page 22) of the petition wherein there is categorical disclosure by the respondent that as per amended provisions of Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949 (For Short ‘Rules’) for recruitment of Ashram Shala teachers, upper age limit is not to be taken into consideration and, therefore, approval or appointment is granted for five candidates. Such circular is by the Commissioner of Tribal Development i.e. respondent No.2. 6. Therefore, petitioner has no option but to challenge the order dated 24.6.2005, copy of which is at Annexure ‘E’ (Page 24) and order dated 23.11.2006 at Annexure ‘I’ (Page 28) wherein Deputy Commissioner of Tribal Development has refused to grant promotion for appointment of the petitioner stating that age of the petitioner is higher than the prescribed age for the post. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioner has alleged that respondent No.2 is adopting the policy of pick and choose and giving discriminatory treatment to the petitioner vis-a-vis exactly other similarly situated candidates and, therefore, the action of the respondents does not appear to be bonafide and hence needs to be quashed and set aside which would result into direction to appoint the petitioner as Ashram Shala teacher or Vidhya Sahayak. Therefore, while praying for quashing the direction as aforesaid, petitioner has also prayed for his appointment w.e.f. 18.2.2005 with all the consequential benefit at par with Mr. Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar who was selected alongwith the petitioner on 18.2.2005 though he is older in age than the petitioner. 8. In support of his claim, petitioner has produced on record a NOC dated 1.2.2005 issued by the respondent No.3 for appointment of such teachers, which clearly confirms that there were two vacant posts on that day. It is undisputed fact that only two petitioners succeed in the selection process i.e. present petitioner and Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar. The said fact can be confirmed from Annexure ‘B’ being disclosure by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3. Whereas at Annexure ‘C,’ there is approval in favour of appointment of Mr. Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar by the Deputy Commissioner for Tribal Development. On 27.5.2005, as per Annexure ‘D’ respondent No.4 has asked for approval for the petitioner. However, by impugned order dated 24.6.2005 at Annexure ‘E’, such approval was refused. On 24.8.2006, petitioner has represented before respondent No.2 that when age of Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar is more than the petitioner why his approval is refused. On 15.9.2006, Deputy Commissioner of Tribal Development has conveyed the petitioner that his representation is under consideration. As per Annexure ‘H’ on 4.10.2006, even Minister for Tribal Development, Department of Government of Gujarat has inquired about the approval for appointment of the petitioner from respondent No.2. On 15.9.2006, Deputy Commissioner of Tribal Development has conveyed the petitioner that his representation is under consideration. As per Annexure ‘H’ on 4.10.2006, even Minister for Tribal Development, Department of Government of Gujarat has inquired about the approval for appointment of the petitioner from respondent No.2. However, by impugned order dated 23.11.2006, Deputy Commissioner of Tribal Development has conveyed the Personal Secretary of the Minister so also the present petitioner that approval of appointment of petitioner cannot be granted because he is over aged and that such fact has already been conveyed to Respondent No.4 by order dated 24.6.2005. Surprisingly, thereafter, respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner of Tribal Development has approved the appointment of Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar confirming that there is no upper age limit for such appointment. Thereby, there is clear documentary evidence on record that respondents are acting perfectly in arbitrary manner and discriminating amongst different candidates for the reasons best known to them. 9. When approval for appointment of Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar was confirmed by order dated 13.5.2008, such fact was disclosed before this High Court in his pending petition being Special Civil Application No.26722 of 2007, the Hon’ble Court has passed following order on 15.5.2008, copy of which is at Annexure ‘K’ (Page 30). “Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that sanction having been granted to the petitioner for appointment on the post of Vidya Sahayak, the petitioner feels satisfied that the orders passed on 13th August 2007 which have ipso facto effect of cancelling the termination order. It goes without saying that his appointment having been approved as Vidya Sahayak his termination will go and he will be reinstated with consequential benefits. Rule is made absolute to that extent. Direct Service is permitted.” 10. Surprisingly, though approval was already granted by order dated 13.5.2008, again on 15.5.2008 i.e. on the very same day when this High Court has made the Rule absolute in the petition filed by Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar, the respondent No.2 has passed another order, copy of which is at Annexure ‘L’, now, disclosing that approval of Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar is granted pursuant to petition filed by him before the High Court. 11. Thereafter, petitioner has again forwarded several representation to the respondent but all that has gone in vain. All such representations are at Annexure ‘M’ collectively. 12. 11. Thereafter, petitioner has again forwarded several representation to the respondent but all that has gone in vain. All such representations are at Annexure ‘M’ collectively. 12. Whereas, in Special Civil Application No.7270 of 2011 preferred by the present petitioner, the coordinate bench of this Court on 28.6.2011 passed the following order. “Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties. In respect of grievance voices in present petition, let petitioner may make detailed representation to respondent No.2 within a period of 15 days from date of receiving copy of present order. As and when respondent No.2 received such representation from petitioner, it is directed to respondent No.2 to consider case of petitioner as per order dated 23rd May, 2008, Annexure 'M', Page 45, wherein, respondent No.2 has considered provisions of Bombay Primary Education Act, 1949 and amendment made in year 1993 and also consider that at the time when any appointment is made by respondent as a Teacher in Ashram Shala, upper age is not to be taken into account and similarly, case of Jayesh Hiralal Thaker, Vankuta Ashram Shala, Tal. Jhagadia, District Bharuch has been considered by respondent No.2. The petitioner is having similar facts and circumstances whose selection was not approved by authority only on the ground of considering upper age limit against present petitioner. Therefore, let this aspect may be examined by respondent No.2 considering page 45, Annexure 'M' as well as considering provisions of Bombay Primary Education Act, 1949 and amendment made in year 1993 and then to pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of three months from date of receiving copy of such representation from petitioner and communicate decision to petitioner immediately. In view of above observation and direction, present petition is disposed of by this Court without expressing any opinion on merits. Direct service is permitted. However, it is made clear by this Court that in case, if any adverse order if passed by respondent No.2 against present petitioner, then, it is open for present petitioner to challenge same by filing appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum in accordance with law.” 13. Pursuant to such direction, petitioner has again forwarded a detailed representation on 12.7.2011 copy of which is at Annexure ‘O’. The sum and substance of such representation is practically the factual details of Special Civil Application No.7270 of 2011. Pursuant to such direction, petitioner has again forwarded a detailed representation on 12.7.2011 copy of which is at Annexure ‘O’. The sum and substance of such representation is practically the factual details of Special Civil Application No.7270 of 2011. Thereby, though respondents were very much in possession of all such details, they have the audacity to call for copies of certain documents from the petitioner by their letter dated 12.9.2011, as per Annexure ‘E,’ and in turn as per Annexure ‘Q’, petitioner has provided relevant papers to the respondents. 14. Unfortunately; inspite of specific factual details which are discussed hereinabove and which confirm that there is clear arbitrariness and discrimination and even after specific direction by the High Court in its judgment and order dated 28.6.2011 to consider the case of petitioner as per order dated 13.5.2008 (Annexure ‘J’) as discussed hereinabove that at the time when appointment is to be made as teacher in Ashram Shala, there was no upper age limit and that in similar case of Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar ignoring his age of 32 years, which is less than the present petitioner, when approval was granted for his appointment; by their order dated 12.10.2011 respondent No.2 has again rejected the representation of the petitioner, now, assigning one additional reason that since all five posts have been filled up now there is no vacant posts in Ashram Shala and, therefore, approval for appointment of the petitioner cannot be accorded. 15. Though facts are very much clear as discussed hereinabove, the respondents have resisted the petition by filing affidavit in reply on 21.2.2012. The sum and substance of the defence version is to the effect that there is delay of more than six years in filing the petition and that no financial or legal right of the petitioner has been affected. However, so far as factual details are concerned, the respondents are relying upon the communication dated 24.6.2005 by the Deputy Commissioner of Tribal Development which is in fact under challenge in this petition wherein it has been conveyed to respondent No.4 that petitioner cannot be appointed because of his upper age. 16. However, so far as factual details are concerned, the respondents are relying upon the communication dated 24.6.2005 by the Deputy Commissioner of Tribal Development which is in fact under challenge in this petition wherein it has been conveyed to respondent No.4 that petitioner cannot be appointed because of his upper age. 16. Respondents are also relying upon the decision in the case of Harshadkumar Girdharbhai Sathwara V. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.11177 of 2009 wherein by summary order dated 20.4.2010, the coordinate bench has rejected the petition on the ground that petitioner’s age on the date of advertisement was 33 years, 9 months and 16 days and, therefore, petitioner was disqualified being over aged on the date of advertisement. It is also submitted that such decision of learned Single Judge has been confirmed in judgment dated 3.3.2011 by the Division Bench between the same parties in Letters Patent Appeal No.2734 of 2010 wherein the Division Bench has also considered that since the upper age is disclosed in the advertisement dated 3.2.2005 even if petitioner before it was working in the department for five years, when he is not entitled to any relaxation because of his services and when he was found over aged, his disqualification is proper. Therefore, this judgment would not be applicable in the present case, inasmuch as it is not the case of defence by the respondents that upper age limit was disclosed in the advertisement or that petitioner is seeking any relaxation in upper age because of his services with the respondents. 17. Thereby, practically, there is no substance in defence by the respondents inasmuch as there is no delay in filing the petition because petitioner has substantially agitated the issue and practically preferred one petition prior to this petition when coordinate bench has simply directed the respondents to take appropriate decision. Whereas, clear arbitrariness and discrimination would certainly result into violation of constitutional right to equality and, therefore, there is reason to interfere with such selection process carried out by the respondents under inherent jurisdiction of High Court as provided by under the Constitution of India. 18. Whereas, clear arbitrariness and discrimination would certainly result into violation of constitutional right to equality and, therefore, there is reason to interfere with such selection process carried out by the respondents under inherent jurisdiction of High Court as provided by under the Constitution of India. 18. However, probably knowing such situation, the respondents have filed further affidavit-in-reply on 11.4.2012, now, referring provisions of Gujarat Primary Education Act, 1949 and rules thereunder which provides for criteria and procedure to be followed for appointment of the teacher, more particularly, schedule ‘F’ prescribed under Rules 106(2) and 111(2) (C) of the Rules. At this stage, it would be appropriate to recollect that though relevant Rule is 106, in Resolution dated 28.12.1978 and, thereby, in the affidavit, such Rule is wrongly referred as 166. With reference to such Rules and Resolution dated 28.12.1978, it is emphasized that the Model condition of employment of teacher in private schools in State of Gujarat as prescribed in Schedule ‘F’ of the Rules, now, specifically states that a person to be appointed as teacher in private school shall not be less than 18 years of age and more than 25 years of age. If we rely upon such contentions, it seems that there is error in disclosing the relevant rule as 166 instead of 106. Even if it is considered as typographical or clerical error, there is another glaring error in the text of amended schedule ‘F’ as per notification dated 28.12.1978, inasmuch as, though in such notification, copy of which is now annexed with such further affidavit as Annexure A-II, the upper age limit is disclosed as 28 years instead of 25 years that may be prevailing prior to such resolution, the text of schedule ‘F’ which is produced at Annexure - ‘A’ - ‘I’, full copy of which is referred during argument, discloses that upper age limit is 25 years only, when it is stated that a person to be appointed as a Member or Staff of a private school shall not be less than 18 years of age and more than 25 years of age. 19. 19. Pursuant to such stand and disclosure by the respondents, the petitioner has now filed further affidavit in rejoinder dated 28.4.2012 in addition to affidavit in rejoinder dated 21.2.2012 clarifying that there is no delay in approaching the Court and now making a precise submission regarding parity with the case of Mr. Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar and details of Special Civil Application No.26722 of 2007. It is also clarified that the stand of the respondent is not correct that there is no vacant post in Ashram Shala at the relevant time. It is also clarified that no upper age limit was prescribed in the advertisement dated 3.2.2005 and there was no reference of Government Resolution dated 31.3.2001. 20. But now, petitioner has filed a latest amendment in the Rules which is modified on 1.10.1993 with a letter of Commissioner of Primary Education Trust to the Deputy Commissioner of Tribal Development that there is no upper age limit as per schedule ‘F’ as per Rules, 1949. Such letter dated 14.9.2005 is at Annexure ‘U’ (Page 91) whereas effective copy of the schedule ‘F’ of the Rules is produced at Annexure ‘S-T’ both in English and Gujarati wherein now it is clear that a Model condition No.1 for employment of staff in private schools in State of Gujarat reads as under :- (1) Manner of appointment of teachers “A person to be appointed as a Member of the Staff of the private School shall not be less than 18 years of age.” Rest of the Rules are not material and hence not reproduced. 21. However, the above quoted rule, both in English and Gujarati specifically confirms that the words in the same schedule at the relevant time of advertisement does not restrict the eligibility criteria in terms of upper age limit. Such fact has been verified from the original rules from the publication of local acts which also confirms that there is no upper age limit prescribed in condition No.1 under schedule ‘F’ vide Rule 106(a)(ii) and 111(2)(C) of the Rules. Such fact has been verified from the original rules from the publication of local acts which also confirms that there is no upper age limit prescribed in condition No.1 under schedule ‘F’ vide Rule 106(a)(ii) and 111(2)(C) of the Rules. When respondents are also relying upon such Rules, they failed to realize that though there may be a provision of upper age limit in the year 1978 or thereafter, when such upper age limit was not in existence in the year 2005 and even at present and when even their own office i.e. Commissioner of Primary Education by his letter dated 14.9.2005 as referred hereinabove conveys the Deputy Commissioner of Tribal Development that there is no upper age limit, there is no reason for the respondents to repeatedly press and plead that there was upper age limit at the relevant time and, thereby to deny the appointment to the present petitioner though the person elder to the petitioner viz; Mr. Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar was already appointed vide the same selection process. 22. Even after such clarity, the respondents have again filed one another affidavit on 26.4.2012, now annexing the Government Resolution dated 11.6.1998 wherein again practically there is no disclosure about any upper age limit but an attempt was made to show that when such Government Resolution refers the relaxation of age limit in certain class of candidates viz; Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, O.B.C. etc., it is submitted that thereby it is to be believed that there was upper age limit. 23. Whereas, for delay, respondents are relying upon the decision in the case of Nadia District Primary School Council v. Sristidhar Biswas reported in 2007 (12) SCC 780. However, law is well settled on such issue that merely delay would not frustrate the legal right and, more particularly, when there is no prescribed period of litigation in any statute for such limitation, the principle of natural justice would apply whereby in case of continuous wrong on one hand, there is no issue of limitation and on another hand, factually when petitioner was continuously agitating the issue since long, there is no question of dismissing the petition solely on the ground of delay. 24. 24. Therefore, it seems that respondents have now filed one another affidavit dated 9.5.2012 now referring Government Resolution dated 9.2.1954 but respondents could not clarify that how this Government Resolution is applicable so far as upper age limit is concerned. Similarly, they are also relying upon Government Resolution dated 31.3.2001 but except confirming that Government Resolution dated 11.6.1968 is to be followed, there is nothing in such Government Resolution to restrict the upper age limit whereas Government Resolution dated 11.6.1998 is discussed hereinabove which also does not confirm the upper age limit. Similarly, reference is made to the Government Resolution dated 18.4.2007, however, now it becomes clear that when advertisement was in the month of February, 2005, Rules applicable on that day is to be followed and not as per Government Resolution issued thereafter. 25. It seems that thereafter matter has been heard on merits in the month of May, 2012 when the coordinate Bench has no option but to admit the matter considering the conflicting reply given by the respondents from time to time and lack of explanation / clarity about the applicability of upper age limit and in absence of provision under the rules. It seems that to come out from such situation, now respondents have filed one another affidavit on 22.6.2012, now trying to explain the situation so far as decision in petition by Mr. Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar being Special Civil Application No.11177 of 2009 is concerned and tried to emphasize that facts are different in the present case, submitting that in the case of Mr. Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar, appointment was made pursuant to direction of the Court. 26. With such stand, now, respondents have again annexed the letter dated 24.6.2005, 23.11.2006 and 12.10.2007 by the Deputy Commissioner Tribal Development confirming that petitioner cannot be appointed as such because of the criteria of upper age limit. However, now, surprisingly, in their letter dated 8.6.2012 they admit that in the case of Bhupendra Patel and Chetnaben Pandya who were similarly situated with the petitioner, approval was not granted for their appointment, whereas, in case of Mr. Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar though his age was higher than upper age limit, approval was granted because of direction of the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 26722 of 2007 dated 13.5.2008. Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar though his age was higher than upper age limit, approval was granted because of direction of the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 26722 of 2007 dated 13.5.2008. This is nothing but a false statement which could be confirmed from the order in such Special Civil Application wherein the Court has practically disposed of the matter because of approval dated 13.5.2008 which is already disclosed and discussed hereinabove. Therefore, now, this communication dated 8.6.2012 is nothing but an attempt to whitewash the falsehood of the respondents but unfortunately they could not succeed in it and on the contrary they came forward with more errors and false statement. 27. Therefore, above discussion categorically makes it clear that the respondents have committed blunder in not granting approval for the appointment of the petitioner though similarly situated persons like Mr. Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar and Chetnaben Pandya were appointed though they are of upper age limit. It is surprising to note that though Chetnaben is in serving and though she has preferred Special Civil Application No.6312 of 2011 for regularizing of pay and salary and though such petition is pending even on today, the respondents have contended in their communication dated 8.6.2012 to the petitioner that the approval was not granted in the case of said Chetnaben Pandya. In-fact, for such false disclosure, the concerned Commissioner for Tribal Development needs to be prosecuted. It is hoped that the Department will take necessary steps against such officers who are filing false information on oath even before the Court. 28. So far as Bhupendra Patel is concerned, though it is stated in such communication that approval is not granted for his appointment, surprisingly, in Special Civil Application No. 13251 of 2007 preferred by said Bhupendra Patel, the Commissioner of Tribal Development has produced the letter dated 15.5.2008 confirming that now they have approved his appointment and, thereby, Court has quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 8.12.2005 and 7.5.2007 in his petition which are similar to the impugned order in the present case. At this stage, observations by coordinate bench in such order dated 12.5.2008 would be relevant, which reads as under :- “It goes without saying that the orders which have now been considered to be not defendable have been passed without considering the implication of law, which governs the subject. At this stage, observations by coordinate bench in such order dated 12.5.2008 would be relevant, which reads as under :- “It goes without saying that the orders which have now been considered to be not defendable have been passed without considering the implication of law, which governs the subject. This kind of approach of the State Government officials cannot be appreciated. In this light, introspection is required to be done at the level of the Government. The Chief Secretary of the State should be apprised of the facts of this case by the Assistant Government Pleader in a personal meeting with him. The Government authorities while passing orders are required to know the limitation of law. The nature of affidavits filed also required to be brought to the notice of the Government.” 29. Pursuant to such submission, this Court has, by its order dated 1.12.2016, directed the petitioner to clarify certain issues and in turn, petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 5.12.2016 with relevant Annexures which are referred and taken into consideration. 30. In view of what is stated hereinabove, there is clear evidence on record to confirm that respondents have not only committed blunder and error but it certainly amounts to arbitrariness and discrimination against present petitioner while refusing approval to his appointment though similar approval was accorded for similarly situated candidates and unfortunately when petitioner has raised such issue instead of rectifying their mistakes, the respondents have committed further blunder by dismissing Mr. Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar and in his case, this Court has already held that there is no upper age limit for the post under reference and, thereby, his termination was quashed and, therefore, he was taken on duty and similarly situated other two candidates viz; Bhupendra Patel and Chetnaben Pandya after being appointed when approval was accorded in their case, though their age was about 28 years. It is also evident that in-fact there was no upper age limit at the relevant time even if Rules are amended thereafter either in the year 2007 or 2012 and thereby even if upper age limit is fixed as on date, on the date of selection of the petitioner when there was no upper age limit, refusal to select the petitioner on such false ground of upper age limit is arbitrary and discriminatory and, therefore the same needs to be quashed and set aside by allowing this petition. However, it is made clear that if at all there is amendment in Rules so as to disclose upper age limit for such posts, then, such Rule would be applicable from the date of such amendment only and not retrospectively and, therefore, decision in this judgment should not be considered as a precedent without following the factual details of existence of a particular rule / condition on the date of advertisement. 31. Therefore, this petition needs to be allowed and, thereby, it is allowed with following directions; (A) The impugned order dated 24.6.2005 at Annexure ‘A’ and 23.11.2006 at Annexure ‘I’ as well as 12.10.2011 at Annexure ‘R’ by respondent No.2 declaring to grant approval for declining appointment of the petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside. (B) The respondent No.2 is directed to grant approval for the appointment of the petitioner as teacher / Vidhya Sahyak in any of the Ashram Shala of respondent No.4 with effect from the date of petitioner’s selection i.e. 18.2.2005 making the service of the petitioner at par with the services of Mr. Jayesh Hirabhai Thakkar so far as seniority and other benefits are concerned except back wages. The respondents shall complete such exercise within three months from the date of receipt of Writ of this order, without fail. 32. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted. Rule is made absolute.