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 and order. For the sake of convenience, the Special Civil Application No. 8714 of 2013 is treated as the lead matter. 2. By these writ-applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, serving as the Female Health Workers under the Rajkot District Panchayat, have prayed for the following reliefs:- "(a) To restrain the respondents, their agents and servants from terminating the petitioners' services and/or altering their service conditions to their disadvantage. (b) To direct the respondents to include the petitioners' name in the seniority list of the Female Health Workers. (c) To direct the respondents to send the petitioners for six month training for the promotional post of Female Health Supervisors on the basis of their seniority-cum-merit. (d) To direct the respondents to grant benefit of Higher Grade Pay-scales as per G.R. dated 16.8.1994 to the petitioners. (e) To direct the respondents to treat the petitioners' services as regular for all the purposes as stated in the G.R. dated 25.2.2009 at Annexure-K and to grant all the consequential benefits. (f) To quash and set aside the impugned order of the State Government dated 6.4.2013 as per Annexure-Q. (g) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 21.12.2011 as per Annexure-N. (h) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19.4.2012 as per Annexure-P." 3. The petitioners are serving as Female Health Workers. They all belong to the Scheduled Tribe. The are natives of the erstwhile Panchmahal District, now bifurcated into the Panchamahal District and Dahod District. In the year 1992, the Chief District Health Officer, Panchmahals District Panchayat, Godhra issued an advertisement inviting SSC passed Scheduled Tribe women candidates for the purpose of training them as the Female Health Workers and thereafter employing them under the District Panchayat. Being eligible and qualified, they all applied in response to the same. The petitioners were called for the interview on 25.8.1992, vide call letters dated 20.8.1992. 4. All the petitioners were duly selected on the basis of their merit and their consent was obtained for posting them under the Rajkot District Panchayat. They were issued letters for reporting before the Chief District Health Officer, Rajkot on 1.9.1992. The petitioners were called for the interview on 25.8.1992, vide call letters dated 20.8.1992. 4. All the petitioners were duly selected on the basis of their merit and their consent was obtained for posting them under the Rajkot District Panchayat. They were issued letters for reporting before the Chief District Health Officer, Rajkot on 1.9.1992. A bond/undertaking was obtained from each of the petitioners that they would be serving under the respondents for a minimum period of three years. All the petitioners successfully completed the training of 18 months as the Female Health Workers i.e. between 28.8.1992 and 27.2.1994 at the Female Health Worker Training School, Savarkuntla. 5. By letter dated 10.11.1995, the respondent No. 1 and by letter dated 27.11.1995, the respondent No. 2, granted permission to fill up the posts of the Female Health Workers, Class-III, under the various District Panchayats on ad hoc basis. Accordingly, permission was granted to fill up 53 posts under the Rajkot District Panchayat. The Chief District Health Officer, Rajkot issued appointment orders dated 26.12.1995 to the 53 Female Health Workers, including the present petitioners, in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1500. The petitioners accordingly, joined duties and started working. Their G.P.F. accounts were also opened as the service is pensionable. All the petitioners cleared the CCC Examination. They all were paid regularly annual increments and their pay-scale has been revised from time to time in accordance with the Fifth Pay Commission as well as the Sixth Pay Commission. As on date, they have completed more than 17 years of service. 6. One of the terms and conditions of their appointment was that they would have to undergo the regular selection process. It appears that on account of the administrative exigencies, the regular recruitment process could not be undertaken. The District Development Officer, Rajkot, submitted a proposal for regularizing the services of the said Female Health Workers, by his letter dated 8.9.2008, addressed to the State Government. The State Government, after due consideration of the proposal passed a Government Resolution dated 25.2.2009, regularizing the services of the Female Health Workers. The approval was granted in exercise of the powers under Rule 20 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1995 framed by way of a Notification dated 7.7.1998. Thus, the services of the petitioners were made regular. 7. The approval was granted in exercise of the powers under Rule 20 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1995 framed by way of a Notification dated 7.7.1998. Thus, the services of the petitioners were made regular. 7. It appears that in the past also one such Circular was issued on 26.3.1992, regularizing the ad-hoc appointments of the Female Health Workers, by exempting them from undergoing the regular recruitment process the District Panchayat Selection Committee and the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board undertakes. 8. It further appears that on 6.6.2010, the Gujarat Panchayat Services Selection Board issued an advertisement in the local newspapers for recruitment of the Female Health Workers. The petitioners herein were confused about the same. They knew that they had been regularized by the State Government, but were in a dilemma whether they should apply pursuant to the said advertisement or not. The Chief District Health Officer, Rajkot by his letter dated 7.6.2010 made it clear that the Female Health Workers, whose services were regularized by the State Government by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 25.2.2009 were exempted from going through such recruitment process and were told that it was not necessary for them to apply pursuant to the said advertisement. It is pertinent to note that even those Female Health Workers, who were appointed on purely temporary and ad hoc basis on fixed pay for 11 months were allowed to apply in response to the said advertisement and they all were thereafter appointed on the regular basis. 9. It also appears that the petitioners claimed higher-grade pay-scale on completion of 9 years service, in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994, but the same was denied. They therefore, filed a Special Civil Application No. 8778/11 before this Court. The said writ-application was disposed of with a direction to consider the representation of the petitioners. The representation was rejected, which led to filing of the SCA No. 2152/12. The said application was also disposed of vide order dated 15.2.2012. 10. In the meantime, a Division Bench of this Court delivered a judgment dated 20.7.2010, in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 85/10 in SCA No. 8611/09. The said judgment was one relating to the claim of equality in the matter of relaxation from the requirement of passing through the duly prescribed selection process. Such claim was put-forward by the Female Health Workers. The said judgment was one relating to the claim of equality in the matter of relaxation from the requirement of passing through the duly prescribed selection process. Such claim was put-forward by the Female Health Workers. They lost before the learned Single Judge and the Letters Patent Appeal also came to be dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench observed as under:- "13. We are alive to the fact that the appellants-petitioners are being engaged, on ad-hoc and temporary basis with interruption/breaks at the end of every 11 month phase. In most of the cases such appointments have been repeated for about 5 to 6 times. The appellants have submitted that the action of the opponents of engaging them on ad-hoc and temporary basis is unjustified and supports them for being regularized. It is in this context that we would like to recall the assurance given by the opponent No. 1 State which has been recorded in the impugned order. It has been noted that:- 4. Has produced on record the noting made by him and submitted that the State Government more particularly the Panchayat Department of the State Government and the concerned District Panchayats shall fill up the posts of Female Health Workers as per the time bound programme mentioned in Note dated 27/09/2009 and all the posts on regular basis shall be filled in on or before August, 2010 by communication dated 22/09/2009, Under Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of Gujarat has already sent necessary communication to all the District Development Officers and the District Health Officers in the State of Gujarat to send necessary requisition to fill up the posts of Female Health Workers to the Panchayat Services Selection Board by 01/10/2009. It is submitted that necessary procedure to fill up 990 posts of Female Health Workers has already begun has produced on record communication dated 22/09/2009 as well as noting of Mr. C.H. Rajpal, Deputy Secretary, Panchayat Rural Housing and Rural Development Department, State of Gujarat showing time bound programme for filling up 990 posts of Female Health Workers on regular/permanent basis, which are directed to be taken on record. 14. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion it emerges that appointments of the appellants-petitioners have been made without following the prescribed procedure and such irregular appointments cannot be directed to regularized. 14. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion it emerges that appointments of the appellants-petitioners have been made without following the prescribed procedure and such irregular appointments cannot be directed to regularized. The Act of regularizing such irregularly made appointments would amount to multiplying the irregularity. As noted above, such irregular appointment and the practice of subsequently regularizing such irregular appointments, deprive several hundred of other qualified and eligible persons and thereby violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the relief prayed for cannot be granted. The appellants-petitioners have failed to make out any case against impugned order. We do not see any error or infirmity in the impugned orders whereby the petitions have been rejected. The appeals, therefore, fail and deserve to be rejected. Hence, they are accordingly rejected. No costs. 15. Before parting, we are compelled, by the facts, to observe that we hope that respondent No. 1 State would make its assurance (as recorded in paragraph No. 4 of the order) good and necessary steps will be taken, in accordance with the Rules, expeditiously." 11. Relying on the said decision of the Division Bench referred to above, the State Government passed an order dated 6.4.2013, terminating the services of the petitioners herein, by cancelling the Government Resolution dated 25.2.2009. In such circumstances referred to above, the petitioners had to rush before this Court with their respective writ-applications. 12. On 10.5.2013, the following order was passed:- "1. Draft amendment is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rindani, learned AGP appears and waives service of copy of the petition. 3. Issue Notice to the respondents, returnable on 25th June, 2013. 4. In view of the communication dated 07.06.2010, (Annexure-L, page 47 of the petition), it appears to be appropriate to direct by ad-interim arrangement, status-quo as regards the service condition of the petitioners to be maintained by respondents till next date of hearing. It is clarified that the present order is passed, particularly, in light of the communication dated 07.06.2010 (Annexure-L, page 47 of this petition). Direct service, today, is permitted." 13. On 17.11.2014, the following order was passed:- "Heard learned Advocate Shri K.B. Pujara for the petitioners, learned AGP Shri Rohan Yagnik for the Respondent No. 1, learned Advocate Shri H.S. Munshaw for the Respondent Nos. Direct service, today, is permitted." 13. On 17.11.2014, the following order was passed:- "Heard learned Advocate Shri K.B. Pujara for the petitioners, learned AGP Shri Rohan Yagnik for the Respondent No. 1, learned Advocate Shri H.S. Munshaw for the Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 and learned Advocate Shri U.M. Shastri for the Respondent No. 6. In view of the contentions raised, Rule, returnable on 30th January, 2015. Learned AGP Shri Rohan Yagnik waives service of notice of Rule for the Respondent No. 1, learned Advocate Shri H.S. Munshaw waives service of notice of Rule for Respondent No. 5 and 7 and learned Advocate Shri U.M. Shastri waives service of notice of Rule for Respondent No. 6. Interim relief, granted earlier, shall continue till final hearing." 14. Mr. Pujara, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the other counsel appearing for the respective petitioners vehemently submitted that the impugned order dated 6.4.2013 is patently illegal, arbitrary, irrational and violative of the principles of natural justice. They all submitted that the impugned order is violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Pujara submitted that it is very shocking that the State Government misinterpreted the judgment of the Division Bench and took the decision to terminate the services of the present petitioners for no rhyme or reason. The learned counsel submitted that the judgment was delivered in connection with the matters arising from the petitions filed by purely temporary and ad hoc employees i.e. Female Health Workers, who were appointed in the year 2003-2004 i.e. after the Recruitment Rules were framed in the year 1998-99 and whose appointments were made without issuing any advertisement or without any regular selection process. Mr. Pujara submitted that the rejection of their claim has nothing to do so far as the legality and validity of the appointments of the petitioners is concerned. The learned counsel submitted that by virtue of the interim order passed by the learned Judge, who incidentally is the author of the judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioners have continued in service and by now they have put in 17 years of service. The learned counsel would submit that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 15. On the other hand, all the writ-applications have been vehemently opposed by Mr. The learned counsel would submit that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 15. On the other hand, all the writ-applications have been vehemently opposed by Mr. Munshaw, the learned counsel appearing for the District Panchayat, Rajkot and the learned AGP appearing for the State respondents. They submitted that no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed in passing the impugned order. They submitted that it is the Division Bench judgment, which led to the passing of the impugned order. 16. On behalf of the respondent No. 5, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed, duly affirmed by the District Health Officer, Rajkot District Panchayat, inter-alia stating as under:- "2. The respondent No. 5 most respectfully submits that so far as the Rajkot District Panchayat is concerned, the sanctioned cadre strength of Female Health Workers is 330 posts. It is submitted that the Additional Director (Family Welfare) Health Department granted permission through a letter dated 5.12.1994 to fill up in all 53 vacant posts. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 through letter dated 10.10.1995, instructed Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board to fill up in all 825 posts after due procedure of recruitment. It is most respectfully stated that however as more time was likely to be consumed in regular recruitment of 825 Female Health Workers for various Districts of the State of Gujarat, the respondent No. 1 herein through a letter dated 10.11.1995 directed to fill up the posts conditionally on ad hoc basis and a copy of the said letter dated 10.11.1995 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A. 3. The respondent No. 5 submits that the impugned direction through letter dated 10.11.1995 were issued by the respondent No. 1 due to administrative exigencies and therefore, immediately thereafter the Additional Commissioner (Family Welfare) Health Department issued administrative instructions through a letter dated 27.11.1995 to all District Development Officers to fill up the posts on ad hoc basis immediately and a copy thereof is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-B. It is stated that so far as the Rajkot District Panchayat is concerned, in all 53 vacant posts were to be filled up from 70 trained candidates. It is stated after taking necessary actions to fill 53 posts on ad hoc basis, ultimately an administrative order dated 26.12.1995 was passed through which all 53 candidates were appointed on ad hoc basis as Female Health Workers in the interest of administration and public at large on number of terms and conditions including that the concerned candidates will have to undergo the recruitment procedure for a regular selection as per the provisions of the Act. The respondent No. 5 craves leave to annex herewith a copy of order dated 26.12.1995 issued by the respondent No. 5 in favour of the present petitioners marked as Annexure-C. It is pertinent to note that accordingly the petitioners were appointed as Female Health Workers on ad hoc basis with vital condition to clear the regular recruitment procedure. 4. The respondent No. 5 submits that accordingly the petitioners were continued on ad hoc basis, but at a later point of time the respondent No. 1 passed a Resolution on 25.2.2009 to the effect that the services of the concerned Female Health Workers duly appointed on ad hoc basis be regularized subject to approval of District Panchayat Service Selection Committee and a copy of the said G.R. is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-D. In other words, the services of the petitioners and others were not to be regularized without approval of District Panchayat Service Selection Committee. 5. The respondent No. 5 humbly submits that the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board published an advertisement in the newspaper dated 7.6.2010, for recruitment of Female Health Workers in all the District Panchayats of the State of Gujarat and so far as Rajkot District Panchayat is concerned, in all 97 posts were advertised and a copy of the advertisement is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-E. It is submitted that in light of the Government Resolution dated 25.2.2009, the Chief District Health Officer, Rajkot District Panchayat informed all the Block Health Officers of Rajkot District Panchayat to the effect that the 46 Female Health Workers who are in service are not required to submit applications in response to the said advertisement and a copy of said letter is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-F. 6. The respondent No. 5 submits that in view of the said letter dated 7.6.2010 issued by the Chief District Health Officer, Rajkot District Panchayat the said 46 Female Health Workers did not apply in response to the said advertisement dated 7.6.2010. It is stated that immediately thereafter one Ms. M.H. Rokad and 31 others preferred a Special Civil Application No. 8778 of 2011 praying for certain monetary benefits. The Hon'ble Court disposed of the said petition through order dated 15.7.2011 with a direction to consider the case within a period of 3 months. It is stated that the matter was decided by the District Development Officer, Rajkot District Panchayat on 21.12.2011 to the effect that as the respondent No. 1 herein issued a G.R. dated 25.2.2009 for regularizing the services of ad hoc Female Health Workers conditionally and as the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee has not taken any decision, the said demands were not acceptable and a copy of letter dated 21.12.2011 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-G. 7. The respondent No. 5 submits that subsequently the same petitioners preferred another petition bearing Special Civil Application No. 2152 of 2012 and the same was disposed of considering the representation on merits and a copy of the order dated 15.2.2012 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-H. It is stated that thereafter the Chief District Health Officer, Rajkot District Panchayat passed an order dated 19.4.2012 on the said representation to the effect that the said Female Health Workers were instructed not to apply in response to the advertisement for regular recruitment as the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee was to take appropriate decision. 8. The respondent No. 5 submits that now the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee of Rajkot District Panchayat has decided in its meeting dated 11.3.2013 that such ad hoc Female Health Workers cannot be regularized in service as they have not cleared the regular recruitment procedure and a copy of the Resolution is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-I. In other words, the petitioners remained ad hoc appointees in the cadre of Female Health Workers. The said Committee has also resolved that so far as the petitioners are concerned, they should be allowed to appear for regular recruitment by way of relaxing the upper age limit and a proposal be sent to the State Government in that regard. The said Committee has also resolved that so far as the petitioners are concerned, they should be allowed to appear for regular recruitment by way of relaxing the upper age limit and a proposal be sent to the State Government in that regard. The respondent No. 5 submits that the said Resolution is sent to the respondent No. 1 on 9.5.2013 with a request to grant regularization qua upper age limit at the time of regular recruitment in the cadre of Female Health Workers and the copies of letter dated 9.5.2013 as well as Resolution dated 11.3.2013 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "J" and "K" respectively. The respondent No. 5 craves leave to annex herewith a copy of recruitment rules qua cadre of Female Health Workers wherein the upper age limit is fixed at 40 years. 9. In view of the above facts it is humbly submitted that the petitioners herein are required to clear the recruitment procedure for regularization in service as Female Health Workers. It is pertinent to note that even the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has held through a judgment dated 20.7.2010 delivered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 85 of 2010 that a relief of regularization to irregular appointees cannot be granted without following due procedure of recruitment and a copy of the judgment is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-L. 10. The respondent No. 5 submits that so far as the Resolution dated 6.4.2013 issued by the respondent No. 1 herein is concerned, the respondent No. 5 has no comment to offer thereon as it is a policy decision taken by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 5 submits that it is clear that the petitioners are not regularly recruited employees and their services remained as ad hoc and they are required to get through the recruitment procedure for regularization in service. It is submitted that the petitioners are at present continued in service on ad hoc basis though they have crossed the upper age limit of 40 years." 17. Mr. Munshaw vehemently submitted that the Government Resolution issued by the State Government regularizing the services of the petitioners pursuant to the proposal forwarded by the Panchayat had a far reaching implications so far as other districts are concerned. Mr. Munshaw vehemently submitted that the Government Resolution issued by the State Government regularizing the services of the petitioners pursuant to the proposal forwarded by the Panchayat had a far reaching implications so far as other districts are concerned. He submitted that there has been a lot of heart burning amongst the identically situated Female Health Workers, whose services have not been regularized. 18. 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 State Government committed any error in passing the impugned order. 19. I am of the view that unnecessarily the petitioners have been dragged by the State Government in this frivolous litigation. I have already stated the facts in details. The petitioners were working as the Female Health Workers Class III since 1992, of course, with an understanding that they would have to undergo the regular selection process as and when the District Panchayat Selection Committee may undertake. Even in 1992 they were appointed pursuant to an advertisement and fulfilling of the eligibility criteria fixed. 20. A very conscious decision was taken by the Panchayat to regularize their service having regard to certain administrative exigencies. What weighed with the Panchayat was that since a long period of time no appointments were made by way of a regular recruitment process. The proposal for regularization in service was carefully considered by the State Government and the Government Resolution dated 25.2.2009 was issued granting the approval for the regularization in service. In 2009 when the State Government took the decision, the law was very much settled as regards the appointments made on ad hoc and temporary basis. I fail to understand why the State Government has come forward with a stance that the Division Bench judgment prompted it to change the decision and pass the impugned order. The approval was granted by the State Government in exercise of the powers under Rule 20 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1998, which were framed by way of a Notification dated 7.7.1998. In the case before the Division Bench, one of the arguments of the petitioners who were seeking regularization in service was Rule 20 referred to above. Let me quote the observations made by the Division Bench so far as Rule 20 is concerned:- "11. In the case before the Division Bench, one of the arguments of the petitioners who were seeking regularization in service was Rule 20 referred to above. Let me quote the observations made by the Division Bench so far as Rule 20 is concerned:- "11. In view of the legal position well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court on this count, the learned Counsel for the appellants-petitioners has attempted to put stress on Rule 20 (3) of the Rules of 1998 and the State Government's power to grant relaxation and prayed for benefit of State's power to relax the requirement under the Rules of 1998. So as to buttress their submissions on the strength of Rule 20 (3) the learned Counsel have also tried to submit that in couple of instances the State Government has, in exercise of power under Section 20, granted relaxation. 12.1 Thus, the appellants-petitioners demand parity of treatment and equality in the matter of relaxation allegedly granted in past by the respondent No. 1 State by relaxing (in exercise of the power under Rule 20(3) of the Rules of 1998) the prescribed requirements regarding the process of selection and appointments 12. The Rule 20 (3) on which much stress has been laid by the appellants-petitioners provides, inter alia, that notwithstanding other provisions in the rules, the State government may in the interest of public service make appointment to any service or post by method other than that prescribed under the rules or relax any provisions of the rules. In light of the said provisions the appellants-petitioners have claimed that in the facts of the case the respondent No. 1 State ought to relax the requirement of making appointment in accordance with the procedure under the 1998 Rules, particularly under the Rule 10 thereof. In this context it needs to be noted, in the first instance, that the said power under Rule 20(3) of the Rules of 1999 can be exercised by the State Government, as the rule itself postulates, only in interest of public service. In our view the relaxation in the matter of selection and recruitment so as to post-facto regularize the irregularly appointed persons, cannot be said to be in the interest of public service. In our view the relaxation in the matter of selection and recruitment so as to post-facto regularize the irregularly appointed persons, cannot be said to be in the interest of public service. It would amount to multiplying the irregularity and encourage nepotism and back-door entries, and would crush the hopes of scores of persons who have nothing in their hands except their qualifications and merits and a faint or rather fading expectation and dream in their eyes that equity and fairness will triumph. If at all any relaxation has been granted in any cases, as alleged by the appellants-petitioners, such cases will have to be judged on their own merits and facts of each case, however, since the said subject matter is not before us, we refrain from making any other or further observations on that count. However on such basis the Court cannot give any direction to the respondent No. 1 State to exercise its power under Rule 20(3) and grant relaxation to the appellants form the prescribed requirements so as to regularize their appointments, which are admittedly irregular appointments right from the inception and thereby confer permanency to back-door entrants leaving out several hundreds of aspirants awaiting initiation of Regular Selection Process in accordance with Rules." 21. The Division Bench, in my view, made it very clear that the power under Rule 20 (3) of the Rules of 1998 is with the State Government and it is permissible for the State Government to exercise such power in the interest of public service. This is exactly what was done by the State Government in 2009 when it considered the proposal of the Panchayat. What the Division Bench did not accept was the argument that Rule 20 be considered by the High Court and relief be granted of regularization in service. The Division Bench observed that the regularization of irregularly appointed person and/or of persons appointed without following the prescribed procedure would deprive the other equally qualified and eligible persons of the opportunity to participate in the selection process and therefore, the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not pass any order of regularization. The Division Bench in the entire judgment has not said a word that the Government has no power to regularize the service in exercise of its power under Rule 20 of the 1998 Rules. 22. The Division Bench in the entire judgment has not said a word that the Government has no power to regularize the service in exercise of its power under Rule 20 of the 1998 Rules. 22. After these many years, to tell the petitioners that they were wrongfully given the benefits of regularization is virtually to kill them. I am saying so because when the regular recruitment was undertaken in 2010 and when these very petitioners were prepared to participate in the same, they were told that there was no reason for them to apply because they had already been regularized in the service. If such was the understanding given to the petitioners, then in my view, no fault could be found with them today. 23. Apart from the above, in my view, it cannot be said that the initial appointments were totally illegal. There is a fine distinction between an illegal and an irregular appointment. Even having regard to the facts which I have narrated, it could not be said that the appointments made in the year 1992 were irregular. The chart at Annexure-A makes it very clear that from 27.8.1992 to 27.2.1994 they were under training. On 26.12.1995, they were appointed and in the very first month i.e. January, 1996 they all joined the service. An advertisement was issued, eligibility criteria was fixed, interviews were taken, the petitioners were sent for training for two years Could it be said that their initial appointment was illegal or irregular in any manner? Let me assume for the moment that the same was irregular, still after these many years, the Government should not be permitted to say that they committed a mistake by passing the Resolution in the year 2009 approving the proposal of the Panchayat to regularize their services. In my view, complete lack of understanding of the position of law and more particularly the judgment of the Division Bench has led the petitioners to this ordeal of a long drawn litigation. This petition is of the year 2013 and is taken up after three years for final hearing. For three years, the sword has remained hanging on their neck for no justifiable reason or fault on their part. They must have spent a sizeable amount after this litigation. For the Government, it would not make any difference, but it would definitely make a lot of difference for an ordinary employee. For three years, the sword has remained hanging on their neck for no justifiable reason or fault on their part. They must have spent a sizeable amount after this litigation. For the Government, it would not make any difference, but it would definitely make a lot of difference for an ordinary employee. To fight a litigation in the High Court is not a child's play. Now-a-days, many specialists including Scientists, Academicians and Judicial Officers are holding administrative positions, which require them to take decisions on administrative side. Many of them may not be exposed to such exercise, but their positions make them imperative to take decisions. Hence, in the process, they should have rudimentary knowledge of the administrative principles governing such decisions. If they follow the procedure, litigation can be curtailed to a large extent. 24. I am unable to accept the argument of Mr. Munshaw, the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat that the regularization of the petitioners in service has led to heart-burning so far as the Female Health Workers posted in other districts are concerned. This aspect should have been kept in mind while forwarding the proposal in the year 2009. When the proposal was forwarded, the same was with some justification and such justification weighed with the Government. I am sure, without any valid justification, the Government also would not have passed the Resolution sanctioning the necessary approval. The administrative exigencies would arise at different places and at different times and it is for the authorities to take care of the same. Therefore, I am not impressed by the submission of Mr. Munshaw that the petitioners should be asked to go home. 25. When everything was done in accordance with law and having permitted the petitioners to work for a period of almost four years as regular employees, the petitioners are justified in submitting that they legitimately expected that they would now continue to serve without any impediment till the attainment of the age of superannuation. There is something like doctrine of legitimate expectation which would play its own role so far as the case in hand is concerned. 26. There is something like doctrine of legitimate expectation which would play its own role so far as the case in hand is concerned. 26. "Legitimate" in legal parlance means that which is lawful, legally recognized by law or according to law "Expectation" means the act or the instance of expecting or looking forward something expected or hoped for probability of an event and "expectation" is most often relatable to one's prospects. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume (I) 151 "legitimate expectations" finds mention of the following: "A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way of an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The expectation may arise either from a representation or promise made by the authority, including an implied representation, or from consistent past practice. The existence of a legitimate expectation may have a number of different consequences; it may give locus standi to seek leave to apply for judicial review; it may mean that the authority ought not to act so as to defeat the expectation without some overriding reason of public policy to justify its doing so; or it may mean that, if the authority proposes to defeat person's legitimate expectation, it must afford him an opportunity to make representations on the matter. The Courts also distinguish, for example in licensing cases, between original applications, applications to renew and revocations; a party who has been granted a licence may have a legitimate expectation that it will be renewed unless there is some good reason not do so, and may therefore be entitled to greater procedural protection than a mere applicant for grant." 27. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (supra) has quoted from Schmidt's case 1969 (2) Ch 149. If a denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to denial of rights guaranteed or is arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or biased, gross abuse or violation of principles of natural justice, the same can be questioned on the well-known grounds attracting Article 14 but a claim based on mere legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke these principles. It can be one of the grounds to consider but of the Court must lift the veil and see whether the decision is violative of these principles warranting interference. It can be one of the grounds to consider but of the Court must lift the veil and see whether the decision is violative of these principles warranting interference. It depends very much on the facts and the recognized general principles of administrative law applicable to such facts and the concept of legitimate expectation which is the latest recruit to a long list of concepts fashioned by the Courts for the review of administrative action, must be restricted to the general legal limitations applicable and binding the manner of the future exercise of administrative power in a particular case. If follows that the concept of legitimate expectation is "not the key which unlocks the treasury of natural justice and it ought not to unlock the gates which shuts the Court out of review on the merits" particularly when the element of speculation and uncertainty is inherent in that very concept. As cautioned in Attorney General for New South Wales' case the Courts should restrain themselves and restrict such claims duly to the legal limitations. It is a well-meant caution. Otherwise a resourceful litigant having vested interests in contracts, licences etc., can successfully indulge in getting welfare activities mandated by a directive principles thwarted to further his own interest. The caution, particularly in the changing scenario, becomes all the more important. 28. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 referred to the circumstances in which the doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked thus: "The doctrine can be invoked if the decisions of the administrative authority affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there have been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn." 29. Another Constitution Bench, referring to the doctrine, observed thus in the Confederation of Ex-servicemen Associations vs. Union of India, 2006 (8) JT 547 : "No doubt, the doctrine has an important place in the development of Administrative Law and particularly law relating to judicial review. Under the said doctrine, a person may have reasonable or legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no right in law to receive the benefit. In such situation, if a decision is taken by an administrative authority adversely affecting his interests, he may have justifiable grievance in the light of the fact of continuous receipt of the benefit, legitimate expectation to receive the benefit or privilege which he has enjoyed all throughout. Such expectation may arise either from the express promise or from consistent practice which the applicant may reasonably expect to continue." "In such cases, therefore, the Court may not insist an administrative authority to act judicially but may still insist it to act fairly. The doctrine is based on the principle that good administration demands observance of reasonableness and where it has adopted a particular practice for a long time even in absence of a provision of law, it should adhere to such practice without depriving its citizens of the benefit enjoyed or privilege exercised." 30. I would also like to remind the State Government of the observations made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of B.M. Jade vs. State of Gujarat, SCA No. 9171 of 1997, decided on 6.2.1998. The learned Single Judge observed as under and in my view, the observations are quite apt so far as the case in hand is concerned. "The State of Gujarat, being a Welfare State, has to exhibit itself as a model employer and see that as far as possible, litigations are not there in the matter of grievances of its employees/ officers regarding their service conditions or some other service benefits. "The State of Gujarat, being a Welfare State, has to exhibit itself as a model employer and see that as far as possible, litigations are not there in the matter of grievances of its employees/ officers regarding their service conditions or some other service benefits. The approach of the respondent-State should also be to see that the grievances of its employees/officers are being redressed at their own level so that unnecessary litigation may not be there before this Court or before any other appropriate legal forum available and people's money may not be wasted, and instead it is utilized in development of the country, but the respondent-State, by litigating such matters, is acting contrary. I have seen in many of the cases that the employees/officers of the State, before approaching to this Court, have made representations to the State government for redressal of their grievances in the matter of service conditions or service matters, but such representations have not been taken care of, as the respondent-State sits tight over such representations or in some cases, the representations are being decided by passing cryptic or non speaking orders. So the action of the respondent-State not to take notice of the representations made by its employees/officers or of passing cryptic orders, gives rise to unlimited number of litigations before this Court. The worst part in the State is that the employees/officers of the Government are not being provided any appellate form in the matter of their grievances regarding their service conditions or service matters and they have the only choice of redressal of their grievance either by approaching this Court or the Civil Courts. The Service Tribunal has been provided by the State Government but its powers are very limited as all the service matters are not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. This is the another reason which gives rise to unlimited litigations before this Court in the matter of grievances of Government servants/officers. Earlier this Court has given directions in many of the Special Civil Applications that in case the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction is not widened, the State Government should provide redressal forum at Gandhinagar and for this a high powered committee has been ordered to be constituted." 31. Earlier this Court has given directions in many of the Special Civil Applications that in case the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction is not widened, the State Government should provide redressal forum at Gandhinagar and for this a high powered committee has been ordered to be constituted." 31. Let me remind the respondents of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala vs. Atma Singh Grewal, (2014) 13 SCC 666 . Such observations fell from the Supreme Court in connection with filing of frivolous appeals by the Government authorities. However, they are quite apt even for the purpose of the case in hand. "10. Even when courts have, time and again, lamented about the frivolous appeals filed by the government authorities, it has no effect on the bureaucratic psyche. It is not that there is no realisation at the level of policy-makers to curtail unwanted government litigation and there are deliberations in this behalf from time to time. Few years ago only, the Central Government formulated the National Litigation Policy, 2010 with the "vision/mission" to transform the Government into an efficient and responsible litigant. This Policy formulated by the Central Government is based on the recognition that it was its primary responsibility to protect the rights of citizens and to respect their fundamental rights and in the process it should become "responsible litigant." The Policy even defines the expression "responsible litigant" as under: "Responsible litigant means:- (i) That litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating. (ii) That false pleas and technical points will not be taken and shall be discouraged. (iii) Ensuring that the correct facts and all relevant documents will be placed before the court. (iv) That nothing will be suppressed from the court and there will be no attempt to mislead any court or tribunal. 2. Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant. The philosophy that matters should be left to the courts for ultimate decision has to be discarded. The easy approach, let the court decide, must be eschewed and condemned. 3. The purpose underlying this policy is also to reduce government litigation in courts so that valuable court time would be spent in resolving other pending cases so as to achieve the goal in the national legal mission to reduce average pendency time from 15 years to 3 years. 3. The purpose underlying this policy is also to reduce government litigation in courts so that valuable court time would be spent in resolving other pending cases so as to achieve the goal in the national legal mission to reduce average pendency time from 15 years to 3 years. Litigators on behalf of the Government have to keep in mind the principles incorporated in the national mission for judicial reforms which includes identifying bottlenecks which the Government and its agencies may be concerned with and also removing unnecessary Government cases. Prioritisation in litigation has to be achieved with particular emphasis on welfare legislation, social reform, weaker sections and senior citizens and other categories requiring assistance must be given utmost priority." 11. This Policy recognises the fact that its success will depend upon its strict implementation. Pertinently there is even a provision of accountability on the part of the officers who have to take requisite steps in this behalf. The Policy also contains the provision for filing of appeals indicating as to under what circumstances appeal should be filed. Insofar as service matters are concerned, this provision lays down that further proceedings will not be filed in service matters merely because the order of the Administrative Tribunal affects a number of employees. Also, appeals will not be filed to espouse the cause of one section of employees against another. 12. The aforesaid Litigation Policy was seen as a silver lining to club unnecessary and uncalled for litigation by this Court in Urban Improvement Trust vs. Mohan Lal in the following manner: (SCC p. 516, para 11) "11. The Central Government is now attempting to deal with this issue by formulating realistic and practical norms for defending cases filed against the Government and for filing appeals and revisions against adverse decisions, thereby eliminating unnecessary litigation. But it is not sufficient if the Central Government alone undertakes such an exercise. The State Governments and the statutory authorities, who have more litigations than the Central Government, should also make genuine efforts to eliminate unnecessary litigations. Vexatious and unnecessary litigations have been clogging the wheels of justice for too long, making it difficult for courts and tribunals to provide easy and speedy access to justice to bona fide and needy litigants." 32. The two decisions relied upon by Mr. Vexatious and unnecessary litigations have been clogging the wheels of justice for too long, making it difficult for courts and tribunals to provide easy and speedy access to justice to bona fide and needy litigants." 32. The two decisions relied upon by Mr. Munshaw, (i) in the case of Dhanuben M. Patel vs. Ahmedabad District Panchayat, SCA No. 8799 of 2013 with SCA No. 8800 of 2013, decided on 7.8.2014 and (ii) in the case of Shardaben N. Patel vs. State of Gujarat, LPA No. 923 of 2014 and cognate matters, decided on 15.9.2014 are of no avail. I take notice of the fact that when the petitioners were told that they need not apply pursuant to the advertisement which was issued in the year 2010, as they had already been regularized, those Female Health Workers who were appointed on purely temporary and ad hoc basis on fixed pay applied and pursuant to the same were appointed on regular basis. The petitioners were also ready to participate, but they were given to understand accordingly. Should they suffer now after these many years for the lapse on the part of the authorities? Shockingly, the Government did not even bother or deem fit to give an opportunity of hearing and straightaway proceeded to pass the impugned order terminating the services. When an employee is in temporary service, his planning for the family would be accordingly and after regularization, his planning would be in a different manner. An employee should know where he stands and his position so far as the employment is concerned. He should not be left in a state of uncertainty. It is very easy for the Government to pass an order terminating the services after four years from the date of regularization, unmindful of the position of the respective families. This is a fit case to impose exemplary costs upon the Government to be paid to each of the petitioners for unnecessarily dragging them in a litigation. 33. For all the foregoing reasons, I hold that all the petitions deserve to be allowed with costs, and are accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 6.4.2013, is hereby ordered to be quashed. The Government is directed to pay Rs. 33. For all the foregoing reasons, I hold that all the petitions deserve to be allowed with costs, and are accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 6.4.2013, is hereby ordered to be quashed. The Government is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to each of the petitioners towards the costs for the expenses incurred by them in fighting this litigation, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the order. The petitioners are to be treated in regular service for all the purposes, as stated in the Government Resolution dated 26.2.2009. Rule is made absolute.