JUDGMENT : Paresh Upadhyay, J. 1. The petitioners are the candidates, who are selected as Head Teachers by the State in direct selection and are allotted to different Districts, as per their choice, considering their merit. The question is of giving posting to them, in a particular school, in the District to which they are allotted. It is the case of the petitioners that, after being allotted to a particular district, the choice which the petitioners should have got for getting posting in a particular school, is restricted by the State to some extent and that is how injustice is meted out to them. With this grievance, the petitioners have approached this Court with the following main prayer (as quoted from the lead matter being Special Civil Application No. 5959 of 2015). "(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the letter/direction/order dated 31.03.2015 issued by the Respondent No. 1 (i.e. the Director of Primary Education, Gujarat State) and further be pleased to direct the respondents No. 1 to 3 to publish and display all the vacant seats on 06.04.2015 and/or at the time of giving choice of places for the Direct recruits for the post of HTAT candidates." 2. It is requested by learned advocates for the petitioners that Special Civil Application No. 5959 of 2015 be treated to be a lead matter. 3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 4. Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the appointment on the post of Head Teachers is regulated by the Rules which are called 'The Head Teacher, Class III, in the subordinate service of the Directorate of Primary Education or respective District or Municipal Primary Education Committee, Recruitment Rules, 2012'('the Rules' for short). It is further submitted that the said appointments are made by two modes of recruitment. Promotion and Direct Selection. It is further submitted that the ratio for appointment by promotion and direct selection is 1:1 i.e. one by way of promotion and one by way of direct selection. It is submitted that the present petitioners are direct recruits (not the promotees). Promotion and Direct Selection. It is further submitted that the ratio for appointment by promotion and direct selection is 1:1 i.e. one by way of promotion and one by way of direct selection. It is submitted that the present petitioners are direct recruits (not the promotees). It is submitted that pursuant to the above referred recruitment Rules, as published by the State vide Notification dated 18.01.2012, an advertisement was published by the Director of Primary Education, as the Chairman of the Selection Committee on 08.12.2014 inviting applications to fill up 2467 vacancies of head teachers in the State. District wise details are also on record. It is submitted that the petitioners had applied in response to the said advertisement and after due process of selection, they are selected and are allotted to different districts, as per their choice, considering their merit. It is submitted that there is no grievance, so far the allotment of districts are concerned, at least that is not the subject matter of this group of petitions. It is however submitted that, the grievance is to the effect that, at the time of giving detailed posting in the respective district, choice should have been given to the petitioners to choose the school where they want to go, and further that the said choice should have been wide enough. It is asserted that, all the schools of the District -where there are vacancies of head teachers should have been made available to the petitioners, to choose from. It is submitted that such choice was given to the promotee head teachers, earlier. It is submitted that by the impugned instruction dated 31.03.2015, the Director of Primary Education has restricted the said choice to some extent, which has aggrieved the petitioners. It is submitted that the impugned action of the respondent Director, as contained in the Circular dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure-A) is illegal. It is submitted that by the impugned instruction dated 31.03.2015, the Director of Primary Education has restricted the said choice to some extent, which has aggrieved the petitioners. It is submitted that the impugned action of the respondent Director, as contained in the Circular dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure-A) is illegal. Explaining the injustice meted out to the petitioners, learned advocate for the petitioners has further submitted that by the impugned Circular, the Director of Primary Education has instructed the concerned District Primary Education Officers that, from amongst the total available vacancies of head teachers in the district, a list be prepared of the schools where a head teacher is required to be posted, in descending order, considering the number of students, to the extent of number of head teachers available for appointment, and from that list, choice be given to the selected candidates. In other words, if there are more vacancies in the district as compared to the number of candidates available, posting should be given in such a way that a school with more students does not remain without a head teacher, and while giving posting that way, choice be given to the concerned selected candidates, as per their inter-se merit. Learned advocate for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that this would lead to a situation where, though a school which is very near to the residence of a selected candidate, and there is vacancy also, that vacancy may not be filled in and some different school's vacancy may be filled in by the Authorities. It is submitted that the effect of this Circular is that the petitioner, who could get posting near his/her residence would now will have to go far, though within the same district. It is submitted that this is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and therefore the same needs to be interfered with. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioners has, in support of her submissions, made reference to the various orders passed by this Court, copies of which are placed on record along with further affidavit of the petitioners dated 31.01.2017. The matters in which those orders were passed are:- "(i) Special Civil Application No. 2696 of 2014. (ii) Special Civil Application No. 2698 of 2014. (iii) LPA No. 876 of 2014 in SCA No. 2698 of 2014." 6. On the other hand, Mr. The matters in which those orders were passed are:- "(i) Special Civil Application No. 2696 of 2014. (ii) Special Civil Application No. 2698 of 2014. (iii) LPA No. 876 of 2014 in SCA No. 2698 of 2014." 6. On the other hand, Mr. Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader has contested these petitions, on behalf of the State Authorities. Attention of this Court is invited to the contents of the affidavit in reply dated 06.05.2016 and the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. It is submitted that no statutory right, much-less any fundamental right of any of the petitioners is violated by not giving posting at the place of their choice, by the State Authorities. It is submitted that the provision in the recruitment rules that the appointment of head teachers shall be made by promotion and direct selection in the ratio of 1 : 1 can not be read as conferring on the selected candidates a right to claim posting at a particular place, within the district. It is submitted that the said ratio is to be followed in the recruitment of the persons in the cadre of head teachers in the State of Gujarat, or at the best in a particular district but in no way it can be read as prescribing some parameters, as to in which school the service of the concerned head teacher shall be utilised by the State. It is submitted that unreasonableness on the part of the petitioners would be evident from the contents of their further affidavit dated 31.01.2017, more particularly, statement annexed therewith showing inconvenience of the petitioners. It is submitted that in what manner the resources should be utilised by the State should be left to the wisdom of the Authorities and in no case it can be permitted to be dictated by the candidates. It is submitted that by the impugned instruction dated 31.03.2015, the Director of Primary Education, Gujarat State has not committed any wrong, on the contrary, it shows concern of the State that, when there are less candidates available for appointment, as compared to the schools with no head teacher, they should be posted in such a way that the benefit goes to the maximum students. It is submitted that this action be not interfered with. It is submitted that this group of petitions be dismissed. 7. It is submitted that this action be not interfered with. It is submitted that this group of petitions be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds as under. 7.1 The grievance of the petitioners pertains to their place of posting after their selection for appointment on the post of Head Teachers. 7.2 For the purpose of regulating recruitment on the post of head teacher, the Government of Gujarat has framed the Rules, as notified vide Notification dated 18.01.2012. Relevant part of the said set of Rules read as under. "1. These rules may be called the Head Teacher, Class III, in the subordinate service of the Directorate of Primary Education or respective District or Municipal Primary Education Committee, Recruitment Rules, 2012. 2. Appointment to the post of Head Teacher, Class III, in the subordinate service of the Directorate of Primary Education or respective District or Municipal Primary Education Committee, shall be made either,- (a) by promotion of a person of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the persons who, ****** or (b) by direct selection. 3. The appointments by promotion and direct selection shall be made in the ratio of 1:1. 4. To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post mentioned in rule 2, a candidate shall *****" 7.3 Pursuant to the above Rules, an advertisement was published by the Director of Primary Education, as the Chairman of the Selection Committee, on 08.12.2014, inviting applications to fill up 2467 vacancies of head teachers in the State. District wise details are on record. 7.4 The petitioners had applied in response to the said advertisement and after due process of selection, they are selected and are allotted to different districts, as per their choice, considering their merit. There is no grievance, so far the allotment of the districts are concerned. At least that is not the subject matter of this group of petitions. 7.5 After allotment of the selected candidates to the respective districts but before their detailed posting, within the said district, by the concerned District Authorities, the Director of Primary Education, Gujarat State issued the impugned communication dated 31.03.2015. It is this instruction which is challenged in this group of petitions. 7.5 After allotment of the selected candidates to the respective districts but before their detailed posting, within the said district, by the concerned District Authorities, the Director of Primary Education, Gujarat State issued the impugned communication dated 31.03.2015. It is this instruction which is challenged in this group of petitions. 7.6 The point at issue before this Court is, as to whether the impugned instruction issued by the Director of the Primary Education, Gujarat State dated 31.03.2015 is in conflict with 'the Rules', and further as to whether the said instruction needs to be interfered with on any other count. 7.7 To examine the above issue, it first needs to be noted, what does the impugned instruction dated 31.03.2015 provide for. The same is on record. The reading thereof makes it clear that by the impugned Circular, the Director of Primary Education has instructed the concerned District Primary Education Officers that, from amongst the total available vacancies of head teachers in the district, a list be prepared of the schools where a head teacher is required to be posted, in descending order, considering the number of students, to the extent of number of head teachers available for appointment, and from that list, choice be given to the selected candidates. In other words, the impugned instruction is to the effect that, if there are more vacancies in the district as compared to the number of candidates available, which as a matter of fact this case is, posting should be given in such a way that a school with more students does not remain without a head teacher. It further provides that, after preparing the list of available schools this way, choice be given to the concerned selected candidates, as per their inter-se merit. 7.8 This Court finds that the above is a pure administrative matter. In what manner the State should utilise its resources should be left to the wisdom of the Executive Authorities and no interference by the Court would be justified in such matters. Further, in no case it can be permitted to be dictated by the selected candidates. 7.8 This Court finds that the above is a pure administrative matter. In what manner the State should utilise its resources should be left to the wisdom of the Executive Authorities and no interference by the Court would be justified in such matters. Further, in no case it can be permitted to be dictated by the selected candidates. This Court further finds that, the provision in the recruitment rules that the appointment of head teachers shall be made by promotion and direct selection in the ratio of 1 : 1 can not be read as conferring any right to the selected candidate (promotee or direct recruit) of claiming posting at a particular place. The impugned instruction, in no way, is in conflict with any of the provisions of 'the Rules' as perceived by the petitioners. The principal contention is therefore rejected. This Court finds that, no statutory right, much less any fundamental right of any of the petitioners is violated by the State, by not giving posting to them at the place of their choice. What is claimed by the petitioners can not be termed as legitimate expectation either. To claim that - the work place should be nearer to the residence of the petitioners - would not fall under any of these three categories. No interference therefore would be required in the matter. 7.9 Though the Court would be slow in entering into the judicial scrutiny of such administrative actions of the State, it is evident on the plain reading of the impugned instruction that the State has acted in most rational manner in this case, keeping in view the mandate of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. This Court finds substantial force in the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader that by the impugned instruction dated 31.03.2015, the Director of Primary Education, Gujarat State has not only not committed any wrong, it shows the concern of the State that, when less number of head teachers are available for appointment, as compared to the number of schools with no head teacher, they should be posted in such a way that the benefit goes to the maximum students. 7.10 This Court finds that the very foundation of these petitions is the ill-nurtured myth by the petitioners, who are no less than the head teachers, that their appointments are primarily for their employment, and imparting education to the children is the incidental benefit to the society. The teachers need to be told in no uncertain terms that their appointments are primarily for the education of the children and creation of employment opportunities for them, though important but is an incidental benefit and in no case, it can be put above the interest of the children and thereby of the society on the whole. Showing distance by the petitioners between their place of residence and the schools where they are posted, only reflects their concern for their ill-perceived, non-existent right. 8. The reliance by the learned advocate for the petitioners on different orders of this Court, would not take the case of the petitioners any further. It is for the following reasons. 8.1 So far Special Civil Application No. 2696 of 2014 is concerned, the same is ultimately withdrawn by the petitioners on 31.07.2014 and no decision is recorded by this Court on the said petition. 8.2 So far Special Civil Application No. 2698 of 2014 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 876 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 2698 of 2014 are concerned, the factors to be noted are as under. 8.2.1 One of the factors which weighed with this Court at the time of recording the first order dated 19.02.2014 on the said petition was, the earlier order of this Court dated 23.08.2012 in Special Civil Application No. 11235 of 2012. This is evident from the contents of the para: 13 of the said order dated 19.02.2014. As a matter of fact, the earlier petition (Special Civil Application No. 11235 of 2012) was already disposed of on 06.12.2012 as not pressed. Thus, the date on which the ex parte order of Special Civil Application No. 11235 of 2012 was pressed into service, the said petition was already disposed of as not pressed long ago. This aspect is even noted by the Court while recording subsequent order dated 24.02.2014 on Special Civil Application No. 2996 of 2014. Thus, the date on which the ex parte order of Special Civil Application No. 11235 of 2012 was pressed into service, the said petition was already disposed of as not pressed long ago. This aspect is even noted by the Court while recording subsequent order dated 24.02.2014 on Special Civil Application No. 2996 of 2014. Thus the ex parte order dated 23.08.2012 in Special Civil Application No. 11235 of 2012 was pressed into service by the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 2998 of 2014 on 19.02.2014, without disclosing the fact of disposal of the said petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 11235 of 2012 on 06.12.2012. Then, the interim order of one matter being cited in another matter - that chain continued. Those interim orders and modification therein was the subject matter of Letters Patent Appeal No. 876 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 2698 of 2014. There are two orders in the said appeal. The first order is dated 13.08.2014 and the final order is dated 04.09.2014. The substance of both those orders is that some interim arrangement was to continue during the pendency of Special Civil Application No. 2698 of 2014, leaving the main matter to be decided by the Bench of Single Judge. When the said petition (Special Civil Application No. 2698 of 2014) was listed for final hearing, on 03.02.2017, the said petition was not pressed qua the prayers regarding posting of the selected head teachers and was restricted only qua the grievance that those petitioners ought not to have been asked to resign from their earlier post. The petition was thus, disposed of only considering the said prayer and was dismissed as not pressed qua other prayers. Reference can be made to the order dated 03.02.2017 recorded by this Court on Special Civil Application No. 2698 of 2014. 8.2.2 Thus, the interim orders in Special Civil Application No. 2698 of 2014 and the orders in Letters Patent Appeal No. 876 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 2698 of 2014 would not take the case of the petitioners any further, since no decision is recorded by this Court which has any connection with the controversy in the present group of petitions. 8.3 For the above reasons this Court finds that, the reliance by the learned advocate for the petitioners on different orders of this Court, which are noted in para: 5 above, would not take the case of the petitioners any further. 9. Considering the totality this Court finds that, the grievance of the petitioners is not well founded. The impugned action of the State is not tainted with any illegality. No interference of this Court is required in this matter. These petitions therefore need to be dismissed. 10. For the reasons recorded above, these petitions are dismissed. Any interim order would now not survive. Rule in each petition is discharged. No order as to costs.