JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard learned advocates for the contesting parties. 2. In this group of petitions, common grievance and common issues are involved. The grounds on which the relief are prayed for and contentions on which action of the respondents are challenged, are common and similar in all petitions. Learned advocates for the contesting parties have put forward common and similar submissions for all petitions. Therefore, this group of petitions are decided by this common judgment. 3. In view of the fact that the relief prayed for by the petitioners are almost similar in all petitions, illustratively the relief prayed for in Special Civil Application No. 3809 of 2004 is taken into account. The said relief reads thus:- "10(B) Allow this petition by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the conditions imposed and instruction given by the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 to produce recognition certificates of the Institute who have given degree of Sangit Visharad. (C) Allow this petition by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 to accept the applications forms of the petitioners without asking for the original certificates and recognition certificates of the Institute and considered the same for the post of Vidhya Sahayak-Sangit Visharad, in view of the advertisement published by them." 4. According to the case set out in the petitions, the petitioners, after having passed SSC/HSC examination, obtained qualification of Sangit Visarad from different institutes or from Bruhad Gujarat Sangit Samiti. The petitioners have claimed that the institutes from which they obtained degree/certificate in music (Sangit Visharad) are recognized by the Government. The petitioners have also claimed that they possessed requisite qualification for being appointed as Vidhya Sahayak according to the qualification criteria mentioned in GR dated 1.8.2003. The petitioners have also claimed that besides the fact that they possessed requisite qualification as prescribed by GR dated 1.8.2003, they also hold special qualification in music. 4.1 It appears that in light of the directions issued by the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 12564 of 2003, somewhere in 2003 the respondents had published an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Vidhya Sahayak (ATD and Sangit Visharad). 4.2 The petitioners have further claimed that since they possessed requisite qualification as per the requirement specified in the advertisement, they submitted their applications for being appointed as Vidhya Sahayak. 4.2 The petitioners have further claimed that since they possessed requisite qualification as per the requirement specified in the advertisement, they submitted their applications for being appointed as Vidhya Sahayak. It is also claimed that the applications were supported with necessary certificates accompanying the applications submitted by them. It appears that the applicants were also instructed that they should submit certificate showing the registration of the school from where they obtained degree/certificate issued by NCTE, Bhopal. 4.3 The petitioners have claimed that actually the advertisement did not specify such requirement. 4.4 In this context, the petitioners have averred and stated that:- "3. ...The respondents Nos. 2 to 6 recently published an advertisement in the local News papers and thereby applications have been invited for the post of Vidhya Sahayak, to be filled in by the reserve category of A.T.D. & Sangit Visharad, as directed by this Hon'ble Court in Special C.A. No. 12564/2003 and allied matters. The true copy of the advertisements published by the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 are at Annexure-D colly. to this petition. The respondents have instructed to the candidates applying for the post of Vidhya Sahayak that the application forms should be accompanied with original certificates etc. It was instructed to the Sangit Visharad that they should also produced a certificate showing the registration of the school from where they have done their graduation, with the N.C.T.E. Bhopal. It is pertinent to note that in the such advertisements, no certificates of registration with the N.C.T.E. Bhopal has been demanded from the candidates who have applied for A.T.D. 4. The petitioners have been aggrieved by the such specific and unreasonable conditions imposed by the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 for those who are applying the for Vidhaya Sahayak being Sangit Visharad. The petitioners state that the advertisement have been published in an identical manner and by following a common judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Still however, there is a clear discrimination in inviting the applications from the persons holding Specialisation in A.T.D. and persons holding specialisation as Sangit Visharad. It is submitted that there is no need for the respondents to have different standards for such posts. Still however, there is a clear discrimination in inviting the applications from the persons holding Specialisation in A.T.D. and persons holding specialisation as Sangit Visharad. It is submitted that there is no need for the respondents to have different standards for such posts. It is submitted that in view of the Government resolution of 1973 the Institute should be Government recognised and it is apparent from the mark-sheet as well as the certificates issued by the Institute, the said Institute is holding the recognition of the State Government. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner No. 4 was even invited by the respondent No. 4 on 14-9-2001 for post of Vidhya Sahayak as she holds necessary qualifications of Sangit Visharad. 4.5 The petitioners have also alleged and contended that:- 5. ...The petitioners state that in view of the advertisement given by the respondent No. 3 it has come to the notice of the petitioners that the A.T.D. Persons would be considered as if they have done their course from the Institute having deemed recognition. It is submitted that in view of the G.R. dated 25-10-2002 the resp. No. 1 has instructed to give relaxation for A.T.D. And other persons if they do not produce the recognition of N.C.T.E. Bhopal. However, said resolution does not include the Sangit Visharad persons. Hence its a clear case of discrimination from all concerned. The petitioners state that on making inquiry with the institute from where they have obtained the certificate of Sangit Visharad it has learnt that the said Institute has also applied for their recognition. In the circumstances the respondents are required to be directed to accept the application forms of the petitioners without asking for the recognition certificates from the N.C.T.E. Bhopal and also without asking for the original certificates etc. at the time of making the applications. The respondents are required to be directed further that the petitioner' case should be considered on merits in absence of above referred certificates. 6. The petitioners state that they have a good prima facie case and they have invested many years to obtain the degree music. The respondents may not be allowed to wipe out the labour of the petitioners of all these years by asking for something unreasonable. 6. The petitioners state that they have a good prima facie case and they have invested many years to obtain the degree music. The respondents may not be allowed to wipe out the labour of the petitioners of all these years by asking for something unreasonable. In the circumstances the interim relief with direction requires to be issued in the interest of justice." 4.6 Since their cases were not considered on the ground that they did not submit the certificate of registration of the institute, the petitioners filed these petitions. 4.7 In the said background, the petitioners have prayed that the conditions by respondent Nos. 2 to 6 (that the applicants should submit recognition/certificate of the institutes) should be set aside and the respondents should be directed to accept and consider their applications without demanding the said certificate. 5. From the details mentioned in the petitions and from the relief prayed for in the application, more particularly from the fact that the advertisement inviting applications was issued as back as in 2003-2004, it is obvious that by now, with passage of time, the petitions are (or must have been) rendered infructuous in view of the fact that the selection process for appointing Vidhya Sahayak (ATD and Sangit Visharad) which commenced somewhere in 2003-2004 must have reached its logical end and the selected candidates must have been appointed. 5.1 Besides this, it is also relevant and necessary to take into account interim order/direction by this Court vide order dated 11.10.2004. The said order reads thus:- "Leave to join National Council of Teachers Education, New Delhi and the Western Regional Committee of National Council of Teachers Education at Bhopal as party respondents. Rule. To be heard with Special Civil Application No. 3797 of 2004. Heard Mr. M.A. Kharadi for the petitioners, Ms. Mita Panchal, learned AGP, Ms. Khyati Hathi and Mr. Barot, learned counsel on the question of interim relief. Rule. To be heard with Special Civil Application No. 3797 of 2004. Heard Mr. M.A. Kharadi for the petitioners, Ms. Mita Panchal, learned AGP, Ms. Khyati Hathi and Mr. Barot, learned counsel on the question of interim relief. In view of the interim directions given in the aforesaid petition, by this interim order the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners having obtained Sangeet Visharad qualification from Bruhad Gujarat Sangeet Samiti Gandharva Mahavidyalaya, Ahmedabad (which was respondent No. 54 in SCA No. 3797 of 2004) as eligible for appointment to the post of Vidhya Sahayak in music, notwithstanding the fact that respondent No. 7 herein (respondent No. 54 in SCA No. 3797 of 2004), which has been recognized by the Government of Gujarat, has not been granted recognition by the Western Regional Committee of NCTE, Bhopal. The NCTE, New Delhi and the Western Regional Committee of NCTE, Bhopal shall be served by RPAD at the petitioner's cost. Rest of the respondents shall be served by Direct Service." 6. From the said order, it becomes clear that this Court had directed the respondents to consider petitioners having obtained Sangeet Visharad qualification from Bruhad Gujarat Sangeet Samiti Gandharva Mahavidyalaya, Ahmedabad as eligible for the post of Vidhya Sahayak in music notwithstanding the fact that respondent No. 7 herein (respondent No. 54 in Special Civil Application No. 3797 of 2004) which has been recognized by the Government of Gujarat, has not been granted recognition by the Western Regional Committee of NCTE, Bhopal. 6.1 The said interim direction clearly brings out that the respondents were directed to consider applications of petitioners by treating them eligible for appointment. 7. In view of said direction, it is obvious that while finalizing the selection process (which commenced pursuant to the advertisement in response to which the petitioners submitted their respective applications) the petitioners must have been considered by the respondents and after such consideration, selection process must have been circulated in 2003. The appointments pursuant to the said advertisement must have been made. 8. It is pertinent that petitioners have not claimed (by way of amendment in the petitions or by way of further affidavit) that the interim order was not complied or that their cases were not considered after interim order or that despite the interim order, the impugned requirement was pressed and enforced by the respondents. 9. 8. It is pertinent that petitioners have not claimed (by way of amendment in the petitions or by way of further affidavit) that the interim order was not complied or that their cases were not considered after interim order or that despite the interim order, the impugned requirement was pressed and enforced by the respondents. 9. Under the circumstances, there is no justification to interfere with the situation which has obtained during past 13 years, i.e. from 2014 to 2017. 10. At this stage, it is relevant and appropriate to note that after considering similar grievance of other similarly situated petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 3797 of 2004, 10592 of 2007 to 10636 of 2007, the Court had passed certain directions vide judgment dated 25.2.2009. In the said judgment, the Court held and directed that:- "7. It cannot be disputed that Sangeet Visharad is a teacher education qualification as defined in sections 2(1) and 2(m) of the NCTE Act, 1993. The institutions already imparting such qualification on the appointed date 17.08.1995 were required to submit application for recognition of the NCTE within a period of six months from the appointed date and such applications were required to be submitted in the prescribed form and with the prescribed application fee in the office of the Western Regional Committee, NCTE, Bhopal. It is to be noted that even rules and regulations are not framed by the NCTE for training to teachers in music and even no norms and/or standards are framed by the NCTE. It appears that in the year 2004, it was submitted by the NCTE, New Delhi that NCTE has initiated action for evolving norms and standards for teacher education institutions for Art teacher diploma and a Committee has been constituted for developing norms and standards for teacher training programmes in Art education, National Council has not yet framed any regulations for teacher education institution for qualification in music. 8. xxx xxx 9. 8. xxx xxx 9. It appears that inspite of above though NCTE Act is of 1993 and all the institutions imparting education in any subject is to be recognised by the NCTE only and they must comply with the norms and rules and regulations framed by the NCTE and after NCTE Act of 1993 such authority under the said Act is the only controlling authority over such institutions, still it is very unfortunate that no norms, rules and regulations for imparting education in music have been framed by the NCTE, New Delhi. It appears that even the State Government has also not taken any steps and everybody is satisfied with the interim order and interim arrangement. 10. Today when these matters are taken up for final hearing, Mr. Shahtri, learned Advocate appearing for NCTE, New Delhi has stated that it is true that as of now there is no separate norms/standards for art and music course. He has also submitted that now issues need thorough examination by an Expert Committee with regard to framing norms and standards as well as regulations for recognising institutions imparting training and/or music teachers and accordingly Expert Committee has been constituted which is being advised to examine the issue and to submit recommendations. Mr. Shashtri, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the NCTE, New Delhi has submitted that necessary regulations with norms and curriculum shall be framed by the NCTE, New Delhi for recognising institutions imparting Art and Music teachers on or before 30th March, 2009. It is further submitted that thereafter applications shall be invited from the concerned institutions for recognition for imparting training within period of one month thereafter and within one month thereafter there shall be scrutiny of concerned respective applications inclusive of complete inspection. It is submitted that if on inspection if any deficiency is found same shall be intimated to the concerned institutions within period of 15 days of such inspection and concerned institutions shall be intimated to cure defects if any within 15 days from such communication and thereafter within one month necessary orders shall be passed by the NCTE, New Delhi with respect to recognition of such institutions for imparting training for Art and Music teachers. 11. 11. In view of above statement, the Chairman, National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), New Delhi is directed to see that aforesaid statement is complied with strictly and necessary regulations for recognising institutions for imparting training for Art and Music teachers are framed on or before 30.03.2009 and institutions are recognised after following due procedure as required under the provisions of NCTE Act and within stipulated time stated herein above. Even otherwise now under the provisions of NCTE Act, it is the duty cast upon the NCTE to frame norms/standards as well as regulations for recognising institutions imparting training for Art and Music teachers and in other subjects which NCTE, New Delhi and Expert Committee have failed to perform. It is to be noted that because of non-framing of norms/standards as well as regulations for recognising institutions imparting training for Art and Music teachers, by and large there is no supervision and control of any authority over the institutions imparting such education in Art and Music and it is experienced that all those institutions who are issuing such certificates in diploma in Art and Music are indulged in mal-practise and large scale irregularities have been found, therefore, it is in the larger interest of candidates/students and public that such norms/standards and regulations for recognizing institutions imparting training for Art and Music teachers are framed at the earliest and recognition is granted by the NCTE, New Delhi and/or its Regional Committee in accordance with law and considering the provisions of NCTE Act and relevant rules. 12. Now so far as reliefs which are sought in the present Special Civil Applications are concerned, interim directions have been issued by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 05.10.2004 by speaking order considering stand of NCTE, New Delhi; Regional Committee of NCTE; State Government etc. and till applications/standards are fixed and regulations are framed by the NCTE, certificate issued by respondent Nos. 54 and 55 herein recognized by the State Government are considered for appointment as primary teachers/Vidya Sahayaks and accordingly case of the respective petitioners are considered for appointment of Vidya Sahayaks. Under the circumstances, interim order dated 05.10.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge is made absolute till norms/standards and regulations for recognizing institutions imparting education in Art and Music are framed by the NCTE, New Delhi as stated above. 13. Under the circumstances, interim order dated 05.10.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge is made absolute till norms/standards and regulations for recognizing institutions imparting education in Art and Music are framed by the NCTE, New Delhi as stated above. 13. NCTE, New Delhi is directed to submit compliance report before this Court as soon as norms/standards and regulations are framed for recognizing institutions imparting education in Art and Music but same shall not be latter than 31st August, 2009. As and when such report is submitted Registry is directed to place it before this Court. 14. With these, all the petitions are disposed of. Rule is made absolute in each of the petitions to the aforesaid extent. Registry is directed to send copy of this order to Secretary, Education Department, State of Gujarat, Director of Primary Education, State of Gujarat and the Chairman, National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), New Delhi immediately. No order as to costs." 11. When present cases are considered in light of interim order dated 11.10.2004 read with judgment dated 25.2.2009, it becomes clear that the petitions do not survive and are rendered infructuous. The learned advocates for the petitioners and the respondents clarified that they do not have any instruction with reference to the petitioners and/or result of selection process and/or about latest/present status. If, after consideration of their applications/candidature, the petitioners were not found eligible for appointment on any ground, then, that decision would have given separate and different cause of action to the petitioners which, cannot be decided or considered in present petitions in view of limited scope of relief prayed for in the petitions. Besides this, such decision is not placed on record of these petitions either by petitioners or by the respondents, and it is not challenged on any ground by amending the petitions. 12. On the other hand, if the petitioners, after consideration of their applications/ candidature were found eligible for appointment and if they were selected and appointed in view of interim direction by this Court vide order dated 11.10.2004, then, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the situation which has obtained for last 13 years. 12. On the other hand, if the petitioners, after consideration of their applications/ candidature were found eligible for appointment and if they were selected and appointed in view of interim direction by this Court vide order dated 11.10.2004, then, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the situation which has obtained for last 13 years. 12.1 Either way, the petitions are rendered infructuous and that therefore, the petitions are accordingly disposed of with clarification that in case of any difficulty or in case of need for other or further clarification or direction, it would be open to concerned parties (i.e. the petitioners or the respondents) to take out appropriate applications. With aforesaid observation, clarification and direction, present petitions are disposed of.