JUDGMENT : Biren Vaishnav, J. 1. These Letters Patent Appeals filed by the District Primary Education Officer, Kheda, arise out of a common oral judgment dated 13.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the judgment under challenge, the learned Single Judge allowed the petitions, filed by the petitioners, who were appointed as Vidya Sahayaks were dismissed from service. The orders of dismissal were set aside. 2. Before dealing with the two groups of Letters Patent Appeals, facts in brief which are common are set out herein after. 3. The appellant, the District Primary Education Officer, Kheda, issued an advertisement dated 22.04.2008 for filling up 257 vacancies of Vidya Sahayaks, namely (1) P.T.C. - 226, (2) CP.Ed -13, (3) A.T.D - 10 and (4) Sangeet Visharad-8. 4. As per the prevailing policy of the State Government, Candidates who had participated in sports were entitled to additional weightage of 5% marks for being considered for appointment. 32 respondents herein had applied and secured their appointments on the basis of production and verification of their Sports Certificates and their placement on such merit list was on the basis of they having secured 5% additional weightage of sports quota. It was their case that they had participated in various competitions in the sport of Kabaddi at their respective events for which certificates were handed out by the Gujarat State Kabaddi Association. Their case was that the Gujarat State Kabaddi Association was affiliated to the amateur Kabaddi Federation of India which was recognized by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports and also affiliated to the Indian Olympic Association. 5. The petitioners, 32 in number, who were the respondents in the present appeals being Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 372 of 2019 to Letters Patent Appeal No. 403 of 2019 claim that their appointments were made after submission of their original certificates along with their application forms which certificates were duly verified by calling the representatives of the Sports Associations at Gandhinagar on 28.05.2008 to 31.05.2008, 18.06.2008 and 28.06.2008. The Gujarat State Kabaddi Association was also called and it was only after verification of such certificates and cross verification by the Officers of the Youth Services and Cultural Activities, that the 32 respondents herein were appointed after interview. Such appointments were made in the latter half of the year 2008. 6. The Gujarat State Kabaddi Association was also called and it was only after verification of such certificates and cross verification by the Officers of the Youth Services and Cultural Activities, that the 32 respondents herein were appointed after interview. Such appointments were made in the latter half of the year 2008. 6. Four years after the recruitment was made, a PEL being Writ Petition (PIL) No. 39 of 2012 was filed by one Shanabhai Gendalbhai Thakore claiming irregularity in appointments. On 29.03.2012, this Court issued notices in the PIL. 6.1. Pursuant to the PIL, on 19.11.2012, the State Government constituted a four member Committee who investigated in the matter of irregularities of recruitment of Vidya Sahayaks for the year 2008. 7. In the course of such investigation, Vidya Sahayaks like the present respondents were issued notices to present themselves for hearing with their documents including Sports Certificates. A notice was issued to individual appointees on 30.11.2012 to remain present with the copies of the original certificates, call letters, receipts of the office showing that the original testimonials were presented etc. Subsequently, notices were also issued in the prescribed format on 14.12.2012 instructing such appointees to come forth to show various certificates based on which they were placed on the merit list and appointed. 8. Show cause notices were issued on 01.07.2013 to such appointees, asking them to show cause as to why their services be not terminated. All this was done under the order of this Court, which disposed of the PIL by issuing direction vide judgment and order dated 20.08.2014. 9. The Status Report, submitted by the District Primary Education Officer, Kheda, stated that according to the Committee, wrongful appointments were of two kinds. According to the Committee, 24843 applications were received. Since the vacancies advertised were 257, it was found that 64 Candidates were excess appointees, as in all 321 appointments were made against 257 vacancies. The second kind was of such Candidates being included who were wrongfully given 5% of additional marks on the basis of sports certificate based on the policy. The Committed found as under:- “After a careful consideration of the facts and material on record, Govt. The second kind was of such Candidates being included who were wrongfully given 5% of additional marks on the basis of sports certificate based on the policy. The Committed found as under:- “After a careful consideration of the facts and material on record, Govt. policy on the issue of additional marks to sports persons, advertisement for 257 posts, merits of the Candidates and their written representation, it is clear that 64 Candidates who were not on merit list and appointed as Vidya Sahayaks subsequent to appointment of 257 Candidates who were on merit list cannot be continued in the Employment as it is contrary to advertisement and legal position. Appointment of such 64 Candidates is also adversely affecting other meritorious Candidates. Such appointments are irregular and illegal and therefore their services are required to be terminated. So far as 46 Candidates who were given a benefit of 5% of additional marks on the basis of sports certificates and found their names in the merit list of 257 Candidates and got appointment orders in their favour are required to be terminated from service as they are benefited only because of sports certificates which were of unrecognized Institutions/organizations. Their appointments have caused a loss of opportunities to more meritorious Candidates." 10. Under the background of these facts, it appears that, on the basis of notices issued which was founded on a confidential report dated 19.1.2013 (which was placed on record for the first time before the learned Single Judge on an affidavit dated 18.08.2018), the District Primary Education Officer, passed dismissal orders dated 23.09.2014 dismissing the original petitioners - respondents 32 in number. Pending the petitions, the orders were not enforced. 11. As stated in the earlier part of our judgment, there are two groups. In both cases, the orders of dismissal are dated 23.09.2014. 61 Appeals being, LPA 310 of 2019 to 370 of 2019 are in cases where, according to the Committee the original petitioners were appointed beyond the advertised vacancies, 257 in number. Hence, they were part of the 64 excess appointees. 12. In both cases, the orders of dismissal are dated 23.09.2014. 61 Appeals being, LPA 310 of 2019 to 370 of 2019 are in cases where, according to the Committee the original petitioners were appointed beyond the advertised vacancies, 257 in number. Hence, they were part of the 64 excess appointees. 12. 32 Appeals being LPAs 372 of 2019 to 403 of 2019 are in cases of original petitioners who, according to the Committee had secured placement in the merit list on the basis of 5% weightage as a result of the Certificate of the Gujarat State Kabaddi Association, which according to the appellants was not a recognized association and therefore in the perception of the appellants, the Certificates were bogus. 13. Under scrutiny therefore, before the learned Single Judge were these two kinds of dismissal orders dated 23.09.2014. 14. We have heard Shri H S Munshaw, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant District Primary Education Officer and Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Hemang Shah, Mr. G.M. Joshi, appearing with Mr. Vyom Shah, Mr. C.J. Vin, Mr. Hardik Dave, Mr. Satyam Chhaya, Ms. Mamta Vyas, Mr. Nirzar Desai, Ms. Shachi Mathur, Mr. Y.H. Vyas, Mr. Jigar Gadhavi and Mr. Radhesh Vyas for the respective respondents. 15. The learned Single Judge, by a common oral judgment has allowed all the petitions filed by the two categories of Vidya Sahayaks, namely beneficiaries of additional weightage of 5% of sports certificate and the appointees excess in number beyond sanctioned post. 16. We propose to deal with the two such categories separately. LPA 372 of 2019 to LPA 403 of 2019 17. The respondents herein 32 in number had secured their appointment in the merit list on the basis of 5% additional weightage on the basis of Sports Certificate. All of them had annexed Sports Certificates of the Gujarat State Kabaddi Association stating that such Candidates had participated at the National Level Kabaddi Championships at respective venues on the respective dates. 18. When the dismissal order dated 23.09.2014 in context of such appointees is read, it makes out a chronology. All of them had annexed Sports Certificates of the Gujarat State Kabaddi Association stating that such Candidates had participated at the National Level Kabaddi Championships at respective venues on the respective dates. 18. When the dismissal order dated 23.09.2014 in context of such appointees is read, it makes out a chronology. Reference in the dismissal order is made to notices issued to such Candidates by the Committee on 30.11.2012 and 14.12.2012, show cause notice dated 01.07.2013, the representations made by such Candidates in response to such notices, order dated 20.8.2014 in PIL 39 of 2012 and also a reference to a personal hearing given to such Candidates. 19. The order of dismissal is in standard format which when translated, states that the concerned Candidate was placed at a particular serial number in the merit list. An Inquiry was conducted by the State Government based on reports that such appointments were obtained on the basis of a bogus Sports Certificate. That the Candidates were called for hearing vide notices dated 30.11.2012 and 14.12.2012 and show cause notices were issued. The order further recited that no direct or indirect evidence had been produced by the appointees to show that such Candidates had participated in the Kabaddi Competition. The certificates had therefore been found to be bogus and therefore after giving an opportunity of hearing in consonance with the principles of Natural Justice, since it is found that certificates were bogus the appointments were cancelled and the appointees were dismissed from service. 20. In the context of these facts, let us consider the finding of the learned Single Judge on the basis of the submissions made by the respective Advocates. 21. From the paper book of the Letters Patent Appeals wherein the 32 respondents are concerned, the following documents are on record: (1) the Certificate of the Gujarat State Kabaddi Association which states that it is affiliated to the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India and Gujarat State Olympic Association. (2) Relevant participation certificate of the Candidate having participated in the Kabaddi Championship, (3) Relevant annexure in a format certified by the office bearer of the Kabaddi Association, confirming the Candidates participation. (4) Invitation letter of the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India and proof of travel. (2) Relevant participation certificate of the Candidate having participated in the Kabaddi Championship, (3) Relevant annexure in a format certified by the office bearer of the Kabaddi Association, confirming the Candidates participation. (4) Invitation letter of the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India and proof of travel. (5) Also is on record, in some cases the signatory of the Gujarat State Kabaddi Association, being an office bearer of the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India and a letter of its recognition by the Ministry of Youth Affairs. (6) Applications made and proof of receipt of the office of the District Primary Education Office of having received such original certificates. (7) Assertions in all cases that the Certificates were verified by the Officers in the backdrop of specific instruction of May 2008 made of verification of Sports Association done prior to the appointments. 22. Based on these undisputed facts, representations were made pursuant to the show cause notices. It was the case of the Candidates that such sports certificates were verified by the officials, annexed to the applications and receipts were issued in proof of such deposit. Cancellation of appointments was done by the Authority on the basis that the Certificates were bogus. It was the case of the petitioners that there was no material available to the Authorities to come to a conclusion that the certificates : were bogus. The orders of dismissal were also challenged on the ground that they violated principles of Natural Justice as no departmental proceedings were held, no witnesses were examined.: Based merely on a report of an Inquiry Committee formed pursuant to the order in the PIL, orders were passed without supplying copy of the report. The order therefore was violative of principles of Natural Justice. 23. According to Mr. Munshaw, the learned Single Judge without dealing with the extensive submissions, allowed the petitions only on certain grounds. He invited our attention to paras 40 and 41 of the judgment which reads as under:- "40. It is in this circumstances, even after the appointment of the Committee for the fact finding and verification on the basis of the material, it has been specifically recorded about the lack of material and inferences are drawn and on the basis of which, action is taken, which is challenged in the present petition. It is in this circumstances, even after the appointment of the Committee for the fact finding and verification on the basis of the material, it has been specifically recorded about the lack of material and inferences are drawn and on the basis of which, action is taken, which is challenged in the present petition. It is in this circumstances, without any material coupled with the different lapses as reflected from the report and when even before the Committee, material is not produced nor any steps have been taken at that stage, the Court would find it difficulty to accept the submissions made by the respondents about the irregularity or the illegal appointments. There is no quarrel that any appointment or the public Employment obtained on the basis of falsehood cannot be sustained and it has to be set aside. However in the facts of the case, submissions have been made with emphasis about the irregularity and the fraud or in connivance with the local Officer by the Candidate suggesting that as they are beneficially, they would be guilty of the connivance and, therefore, inference has to be drawn, are misconceived. 41. On the other hand, learned Advocates for the petitioners including learned Advocate, Shri Pujara as well as learned Senior Counsel, Shri Shalin Mehta have specifically submitted that even if the irregularity is accepted, the petitioners cannot be blamed, particularly, when after the appointment or during the process, there was stages for scrutiny and verification, which have been done in some cases as submitted by learned Advocate, Ms. Vyas that verification has been made and they have submitted the originals. This itself suggests that it could not have been possible even if the petitioners had desired without the active cooperation and support from the Officer of the District Primary Education Officer and its subordinates. Even the Committee has in the report clearly referred to this aspect. Therefore, the submission about the fraud and the irregularity has to be prima facie established with the material, which is missing in the present case. It is because the material is not available, the inference is sought to be drawn because some of the petitioners are beneficiary. Even the Committee has in the report clearly referred to this aspect. Therefore, the submission about the fraud and the irregularity has to be prima facie established with the material, which is missing in the present case. It is because the material is not available, the inference is sought to be drawn because some of the petitioners are beneficiary. Even if it is accepted that some of the petitioners are beneficiary, entire procedure cannot be set aside particularly when many petitioners having undergone entire selection procedure are appointed and there was verification or scrutiny of the certificates or testimonials. Therefore, the issue of fraud and irregularity does not fulfill the necessary criteria with necessary material and it fall short of the required criteria for inference or the conclusion that the appointments were by way of fraud only. It is at that stage, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mahipal Singh Tomar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2013) 16 SCC 771 referred to and relied upon by learned senior Counsel, Shri Shalin Mehta as well as learned Advocate, Shri K.B. Pujara, is required to be considered. (Para No. 13)." 24. According to Mr. Munshaw, passage of time and the fact that the respondents/original petitioners have continued for long, was not a ground on which the petitions should have been allowed. 25. The common submission on behalf of the respondents irrespective of the category of appointees i.e. based on sports certificates or excess appointees is that, the entire exercise was carried out in violation of principles of Natural Justice. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. G.M. Joshi, and other Counsels were ad idem and submitted as under:- (i) Advertisement was issued on 22.04.2008. Call letters were issued in June 2008, receipts in proof of production of certificates were given in August 2008. Appointment orders were issued in the year 2008 itself. (ii) PIL 39 of 2012 was filed four years after such appointments, which triggered the entire exercise. (iii) Show cause notices were an idle formality based on presumption, without any Departmental Proceeding. The confidential report of 2013 was for the first time placed on record in 2018. Findings of the Inquiry Report were never supplied to the Candidates. The basis of the employer drawing the conclusion that the Certificates were bogus was based on surmises and conjectures. (iii) Show cause notices were an idle formality based on presumption, without any Departmental Proceeding. The confidential report of 2013 was for the first time placed on record in 2018. Findings of the Inquiry Report were never supplied to the Candidates. The basis of the employer drawing the conclusion that the Certificates were bogus was based on surmises and conjectures. (iv) There was violation of Article 311(2) as no full fledged Departmental Inquiry was held. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Assam v. Kanakchandra Datta, reported in AIR 1967 SC 884 and AIR 1966 SC 1529 (para 6). (v) Reliance was also placed on a decision in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Leela Singh reported in (2007) 12 SCC 146 and Kamal Nayan Mishra v. Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 169 and in the case of Mahipal Singh Tomar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2013) 16 SCC 771, the relevant paras of which read as under:- "12. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and scanned the records of all the appeals. Since there is no dispute between the parties that copy of the report prepared by the District Magistrate was not supplied to any of the Appellants and no action oriented notice or opportunity of hearing was given to them proposing cancellation of their placement as Principals and termination of their services, there is no escape from the conclusion that the decision taken by the State Government and consequential actions taken by the Director and the Management of the colleges were nullity and the laboured exercise undertaken by the High Court to record a finding that placement of the Appellants in the particular Colleges was void was not at all warranted. 13. It is neither the pleaded case of the Respondents nor has it been argued before us that any of the Appellants was instrumental in his/her placement in the particular college or change of placement from one College to the other. It has also not been suggested that the Appellants or any of them had misled the Director in the matter of his/her placement in the particular College or used undue influence for securing placement in the particular College. It has also not been suggested that the Appellants or any of them had misled the Director in the matter of his/her placement in the particular College or used undue influence for securing placement in the particular College. Therefore, the Appellants could not have been condemned unheard by the State Government and the Director by being denied the bare minimum opportunity to controvert the finding recorded by the District Magistrate and to show cause that there was no valid ground or justification to cancel his/her placement. The Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error by non suiting them by invoking the proposition laid down in Mohd. Sartaj v. State of UP (supra), Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (supra) and State of Manipur v. Y. Token Singh (supra)." 26. Mr. G.M. Joshi, learned Advocate submitted as under:- (a) In LPA 374 of 2019, Mr. G.M. Joshi submitted that all the documents of the original petitioner were verified and the petitioner was given appointment by giving benefit of 5% additional marks on the basis of forged certificate in Kabaddi. The petitioner participated in the tournament held at Amravati and produced tickets also as also original documents at the time of first selection on 1st August, 2008 (page -53). Undisputedly, the Association which issued certificate is affiliated to national body and details called for by District Panchayat were submitted by Association directly, which shows the name of the petitioner that she participated in the tournament held at Amravati between 12th December, 2009 and 15th December, 2009 (pages 60 and 61). (b) Mr. Joshi referred to the notice at page 102 as also to the speaking order passed by the Director of Primary Education giving an opportunity to the Candidates (page 89). (c) Mr. Joshi referred to reply given by the petitioner (page 90) as also Resolution page 102 (relevant page 143). 27. Mr. Munshaw, learned Advocate relied on the following decisions:- (1) State of Chhattisgarh and others v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar reported in (2009) 13 SCC 600 . (2) Union of India v. Dattatray S/o. Namdeo Mendhekar and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 612 (3) Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 153 . (4) Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India and others, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 103 . (2) Union of India v. Dattatray S/o. Namdeo Mendhekar and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 612 (3) Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 153 . (4) Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India and others, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 103 . (5) State of Orissa and another v. Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 . (6) Rakhi Ray and others v. High Court of Delhi and others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 637 . (7) Addl. General Manager - Human Resource, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., v. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 336 . (8) Amol v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 134 . (9) Judgment dated 10.08.2017 rendered in LPA No. 1093 of 2014 and other appeals. (10) Judgment dated 12.03.2014 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 9134 of 2011 and other petitions. (11) Judgment dated 12.08.2008 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 9574 of 2008 and allied matters. 28. Dealing with the batch of appeals concerning these 32 respondents, original petitioners who secured their appointments on the basis of Sports Certificate let us set out a chronology of facts, once again and the reasons:- (I) Pursuant to an advertisement dated 22.04.2008, the respondents in these Appeals applied together with the Certificate of the Kabaddi Association verifying their participation and therefore giving them the added 5% weightage to which they were entitled to as per the policy in vogue. That the policy envisaged such additional weightage is not an issue. (II) The appointment preceded an exercise of verification of the antecedents of the association. Communications of May 2008 and June 2008 are on record by which the Sports Federations were asked to submit their recognitions. Nothing is on record to suggest that the Gujarat State Kabaddi Association at the time of verification failed the scrutiny. (III) After such an exercise was carried out, the appointees were issued call letters, they were interviewed, their original certificates verified and collected. Duly signed receipts were issued confirming such an exercise. (IV) Four years after such appointment, RTI application and a PIL 39 of 2012 triggered verification of such appointments emphasis being on excess appointments made. It would be in the fitness of things to quote observations of the PIL judgment dated 20.08.2014 viz-a-viz the Sports Certificates Candidates. Duly signed receipts were issued confirming such an exercise. (IV) Four years after such appointment, RTI application and a PIL 39 of 2012 triggered verification of such appointments emphasis being on excess appointments made. It would be in the fitness of things to quote observations of the PIL judgment dated 20.08.2014 viz-a-viz the Sports Certificates Candidates. The same read as under:- "During the course of these petitions, various affidavits have been filed. The State Government agrees that the certificates produced by the 46 Candidates of having participated in Kabaddi were issued by the Gujarat State Kabaddi Association were genuine and authentic, however, such association was not recognized by the State Government and that, therefore, the Candidates holding such certificates were not eligible for additional weightage. The District Panchayat also seems to be of the opinion that the additional weightage given at the time of appointments to such Candidates was not in consonance with the rules and further that there is insufficient material on record suggesting the circumstances under which the additional 64 appointments were made. When the District Panchayat initiated steps for terminating the services of such Vidya Sahayaks, they challenged the process undertaken by the Panchayat. These writ petitions were initially filed before the learned Single Judge. However, in view of the pendency of the Public Interest Litigation, such petitions were connected with the Public Interest Litigation. Case of these petitioners in the nutshell is that they hold the certificates issued by an association which was affiliated with the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India and the Gujarat State Olympic Association. Nowhere the advertisement or even the Government internal circulars provided that certificate of a Committee must be from an Association of sports which is recognized by the State. The case further is that having been appointed for over six years now, their services could not be terminated on the ground that there had been some error or oversight on the part of the Authority. They also argued that the present Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable since in the Service Jurisprudence writ petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation would not be available. At the outset, learned Counsel for the Public Interest Petitioner submitted that he would not question the assignment of additional weightage to a sports person. They also argued that the present Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable since in the Service Jurisprudence writ petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation would not be available. At the outset, learned Counsel for the Public Interest Petitioner submitted that he would not question the assignment of additional weightage to a sports person. He, however, submitted that such allotment of marks must be on the basis of a valid certificate of participation at a prescribed level as laid down by the State Government, and that such certificate must be from a recognized body. Since the Public Interest Petitioner has already achieved its purpose of triggering the State and the Panchayat Authority into action, in our opinion, no further directions are required to be issued in such Public Interest Litigation. Since the issue of legality or otherwise of the appointments of 46 Candidates with an aid of additional sports quota marks and that of 64 additional Candidates outside of the notified vacancies is pending before the Panchayat Authority, we refrain ourselves from expressing our final opinion on the very nature and legality of the appointments. It cannot be gainsaid that to get the benefit of additional marks in sport participation category, such participation must be at a certain specified level and such marks cannot be assigned for mere participation at a level which is not recognized by the State Government. Fulfilling such requirement would, therefore, necessarily need certification from appropriate organization or body. If there has been any overt overlooking of such requirements by the appointing Authority, mere efflux of time may not save the appointments. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that such appointments were made six long years back. Mere irregularity may not be sufficient to terminate such appointees, that too summarily. We have also noted that the certificates issued, by the Gujarat State Kabaddi Association to the Candidates is affiliated to the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India and the Gujarat State Olympic Association. Mere irregularity may not be sufficient to terminate such appointees, that too summarily. We have also noted that the certificates issued, by the Gujarat State Kabaddi Association to the Candidates is affiliated to the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India and the Gujarat State Olympic Association. A subsidiary question, therefore, may arise as to whether if such Association is enjoying the affiliation as declared, would it still have to be recognized by the State Government to be able to give certificate of sports participation which would enable the Committee to seek additional weightage." (V) Pursuant thereto during the pendency of the PIL, notices were issued to the respondents to show cause as to why they not be dismissed. The notice and the dismissal order, common in all cases is based on a presumption that the certificates produced by the respondents were bogus and that the appointees were not able to prove by direct or indirect evidence that the certificates were genuine or otherwise. The basis is that the Candidates failed to prove by evidence the veracity of the Sports Certificates. (VI) An Inquiry Committee of four members was appointed by the State Government. Reading the affidavits on record, filed by the District Primary Education Officer and the State Government, reveal that through a letter dated 22.11.2011, the Director of Primary Education addressed to the D.P.E.O and informed that instead of 257 vacancies that were advertised, 50 excess vacancies have been filled in and therefore the record be verified. The DPEO responded vide letter dated 21.12.2011 informing that 64 appointments were made in excess of the advertised vacancies after 17 rounds of selection. (VII) With regard to the appointees of Sports Certificates, the only opinion that was given was that it was not in accordance with Government Resolution dated 15.07.2008. No specific finding or observation appeared regarding the validity or otherwise of the Sports Certificates. (VIII) It appears that to the show cause notices of 30.11.2012 and 14.12.2012, the Inquiry Committee submitted a report on 19.01.2013 and in context of such a report, which was never supplied to the Candidate, show cause notices were issued on 01.07.2013. The report saw the light of the day for the first time when it was placed by way of an affidavit dated 18.08.2018. The report saw the light of the day for the first time when it was placed by way of an affidavit dated 18.08.2018. The translated findings of the report in short read as under:- a "Of the merit list of 257 Candidates, 9 Candidates have submitted proof of participation in sports. b It has been noticed that the Sports Certificates in rest of the cases have not been verified and there is therefore discrepancy in assessment of merit. The Inquiry Committee holds that the Sports Certificates produced by the Candidates are bogus." (IX) Prima facie, the findings of the Inquiry Committee that the Certificates are bogus do not indicate any reasons as to on what basis has such a finding been arrived at, of course not withstanding the primary defect that such findings have not been made available to the Candidates. From the affidavit it is evident that the entire basis of issuance of show cause notices is the report which is not supplied. In what manner the certificates are held to be bogus has been left for the Candidate to prove. The entire burden is therefore shifted on such respondent appointees. (X) Dismissal orders dated 23.09.2014 reiterates the above chronology and puts the services of the appointee to an end on the ground that such appointee has not been able to produce evidence to show that the Certificate is not bogus. This obviously was for the employer to prove. 29. What is therefore evident in the chronology is that the learned Single Judge though may not have disturbed the dismissals on the ground of passage of time, he has extensively found favour with the respondents - original petitioners in their submission that (A) They had produced certificates after verification and (B) The entire exercise was in violation of principles of Natural Justice. In this context, the learned Single Judge held as under:- "36. It is required to be stated that in the recruitment of Vidyasahayak, there was a policy to give 5% weightage/mark to the Candidates having certificate of performance in sports. This policy and the recruitment was also subject matter of litigation and this Court in a judgment in Special Civil Application No. 9574/2008 and allied group of matters dated 12.08.2018 upheld the decision of the Government of ignoring such certificate for the purpose of appointment based on the sports certificate. This policy and the recruitment was also subject matter of litigation and this Court in a judgment in Special Civil Application No. 9574/2008 and allied group of matters dated 12.08.2018 upheld the decision of the Government of ignoring such certificate for the purpose of appointment based on the sports certificate. Therefore it appears that the issue of bogus or ingenuine sport certificate has been subject matter of litigation and consideration before the Court. Therefore this Court had in the earlier judgment upheld the decision of the Government to ignore such certificate after scrutiny. It is also conveyed that there after the Government has scraped such policy to give weightage on such certificates. However, the present group of matters are also related to partly issue of weightage given to the sport certificates in the recruitment process and such certificate are claimed to be bogus. Further this process of the recruitment in the present group of petitions is also about the same time but before the judgment was delivered. Therefore as it appears from the record in the proceeding of group of petitions, the Director of Primary Education vide communication dated 21.05.2008 asked the District Primary Education Officer to scrutinize such certificate and stopped preparation of the merit list. Thereafter, it appears that the scrutiny had taken place as could be seen from the communication/order dated 23.09.2014 at Annexure Y produced in some of the petitions including Special Civil Application No. 14414 to 14436 of 2014. The order dated 23.09.2014 clearly refers to the irregularity in the recruitment based on the bogus sports certificate and/or disability certificate and the recruitment of persons in excess of the post advertised. The order refers to different litigation before the High Court including the PIL being Writ Petition (PEL) No. 39/2012 and the order dated 20.08.2014 by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Similarly, reference is made to other orders in Special Civil Application No. 10768/2013 and allied matters. Therefore, the submissions have been made at length referring to the background of the facts that in earlier round, the Hon'ble Division Bench had directed the respondent No. 3 to decide the issue, however, the respondent No. 3 has not decided the question and has mechanically passed the impugned order. Therefore, the submissions have been made at length referring to the background of the facts that in earlier round, the Hon'ble Division Bench had directed the respondent No. 3 to decide the issue, however, the respondent No. 3 has not decided the question and has mechanically passed the impugned order. The emphasis has been made that even if the Association or the Organization which had granted sports certificate, is required to have recognition for the purpose of grant and even if there is no recognition of such Association by the State Government, it may have affiliation with other recognized Association at the higher level like Federation. Therefore, it has been emphasized that the documents produced by many petitioners state affiliation of Gujarat State Kabaddi Association with Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India and Gujarat State Olympic Association. Therefore it has been contended that even if there is any lapse or irregularity, the petitioners may not be made to suffer. Learned Advocates have emphasized the observations in a judgment made by the Hon'ble Division Bench in PIL being Writ Petition (PEL) No. 39/2012 dated 20.08.2014, "However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that such appointments were made six long years back. Mere irregularity may not be sufficient to terminate such appointees, that too, summarily." 37. As stated above, whole issue cropped up in PIL being Writ Petition (PIL) No. 39/2012 and the Hon'ble Division Bench directed to examine and scrutinize such certificates and irregularity in the appointments. It is because of such directions, the exercise has been undertaken due the orders passed by the Courts. However as stated at length by some of the Counsel including learned Senior Counsel, Shri Y.N. Oza appearing with learned Advocate, Shri Nirzar Desai and learned Advocate, Ms. Mamta Vyas that many Candidates have submitted their sports certificates and/or testimonial for verification and there was a special camp for verification and, therefore, it cannot be said that the appointments of some of the petitioners are bogus or based on such certificates. Further it has been pointedly referred to the records to submit that the original record or the certificates have been given to the Authority for the purpose of verification and, therefore, many Candidates may not have the original certificates and their services are either terminated or show cause notices have been issued only on the ground that they have not produced the original certificate. This has led to heart burning and ground of litigation, which culminated into the appointment of the Special Committee by the Government. The Hon'ble Division Bench in PEL being Writ Petition (PIL) No. 39/2012 made the appointments subject to result of the petition and, thereafter on the basis of the scrutiny, when the show cause notices came to be issued, again it was a matter of litigation and the Committee had submitted the report, on the basis of which, the decision has been taken by the respondent - District Primary Education Officer, Kheda to terminate the services of the Candidates, who did not possess the qualification prescribed by the Government as concluded by the Committee. The instructions were issued by the Director of Primary Education and, thereafter, the notice and the impugned order came to be passed. It is required to be stated that the report of the Committee was not placed on record till hearing before this Court and subsequently vide order dated 10.08.2018, the respondent - Government was providing an opportunity to clear the stand of the Government on affidavit and the contents of the report, which was placed on record. It was granted subject to the objection by learned Senior Counsel, Shri Shalin Mehta appearing with learned Advocate, Shri Hemang Shah for some of the petitioners as well as learned Advocate, Shri K.B. Pujara and other Advocates appearing for the respective petitioners. Thereafter additional affidavit came to be filed and it has been stated that 64 more Candidates have been appointed than the original advertisement without following procedure contrary to the policy of the State Government. However it has been stated that during the Inquiry, it has come on the record that the record of additional Candidates, who have been appointed, is not available with the District Primary Officer or the District Panchayat. It is, therefore, contended that such appointments are backdoor appointments without any record. Further it has been clearly stated in the affidavit that out of 257 Candidates, database and the certificate of 9 Candidates have been verified and it has tallied to the sports activities and, therefore, their appointments was approved. Further it is the case of some of the Candidates even before the Committee that they are not benefited by additional marks of sport certificate. Further it is the case of some of the Candidates even before the Committee that they are not benefited by additional marks of sport certificate. However there is some discrepancy while examining with the statement of the Officers of the District Panchayat and, therefore, they are contradictory. Therefore, it is stated in the affidavit that their appointments appear to be doubtful as stated in Para Nos. 8.4 to 8.5 of the reply. Moreover, it is contended in the affidavit that there is no longer res integra such appointments, which have been claimed on the bogus sport certificates, could be a matter of scrutiny and any such appointment could be bad as decided by this Court in a judgment in case of Patel Tulsiben Ambalal (supra). It is stated that this judgment has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court and, therefore, such issue cannot be permitted to be agitated and as per the direction given by the Hon'ble Division Bench, after the scrutiny, the notices have been issued and, thereafter, impugned order for termination have been passed. 38. XXX XXX XXX 39. Thus it transpires from the record that there have been rounds of litigation with regard to the weightage given for the sport certificates and the issues regarding the genuineness of the sport certificate. However as stated above, before it could be decided when the recruitment process has been undertake with the consideration of the sport certificate and when the Hon'ble Division Bench as per the order passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 39/2012 directed to scrutinize and the appointments to be made subject to the petitions, scrutiny has been made. However it is at that stage as referred to by learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners in many matters that they have submitted the original certificates, the scrutiny have been made at the camp and the appointments have been made after the scrutiny and, hence, they would stand on a different footing partly than the appointment of so-called total irregular appointment made by way of backdoor entries for 64 such Candidates. At the same time, the issue is not with regard to only sport certificates but appointments, which have been made in excess of number of posts advertised. At the same time, the issue is not with regard to only sport certificates but appointments, which have been made in excess of number of posts advertised. The submissions have been made by learned Advocates for the petitioner that it is not factually so in-as-much as when the Candidates, who have been appointed have not resumed or joint, further appointments have been made from the waiting list and, therefore, scrutiny based on the relevant material and record would be necessary apart from the aspect of genuineness of the sports certificate. Therefore, the recruitment procedure itself requires a closer scrutiny. Admittedly, there is no record available as stated on record by the State. Further, the material or the record for the appointments of the special 64 Candidates is also not there. It appears that it is after the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 39/2012 and other litigations, the Committee came to be constituted by the Government by Government Resolution dated 19.11.2012 for the purpose of scrutiny of the entire process of recruitment. The report has been made by the Committee which is now subsequently placed on record after this Court passed an order. Therefore, the report of the Committee would be most relevant, which could throw light on the aspect of the recruitment procedure when there is no material available and which would not have been available for perusal of the Court. The report has clearly stated about the irregularities and at the same time, has clearly stated that the record was not available. Therefore, it has clearly stated that in a meeting dated 26.08.2012, certain facts were noted inter alia that the appointments of 64 Candidates were found to be doubtful. However these appointments have been said to be doubtful as local Officers had not produced the record before the Committee. Thereafter apparent irregularity etc. have been referred to. However it has been stated that after the resignation of the Candidates, though waiting list was required to be prepared, no record was available. Similarly, 257 vacancy were filled up. Out of 64 Candidates, 51 Candidates were given appointment on the basis of the sport certificate. Thus 64 Candidates as referred, are not in the merit list. However it has been stated that after the resignation of the Candidates, though waiting list was required to be prepared, no record was available. Similarly, 257 vacancy were filled up. Out of 64 Candidates, 51 Candidates were given appointment on the basis of the sport certificate. Thus 64 Candidates as referred, are not in the merit list. At the same time, there is reference to the verification of such certificate at the camp at Gandhinagar, but no verification or scrutiny was made by the Authority or competent Officer as recorded in the report. Therefore inspite of the directions and the instructions by the Director of Primary Education, the concerned District Primary Education Officer and/or representative had not made necessary scrutiny or had not followed the instructions. The report clearly states that for special 64 Candidates, who are said to have been appointed, no record is available nor there is any waiting list. Therefore, they have stated that since the instructions of the Director of the Primary Education have not been followed up and no record is available, if the termination is made, it may lead to litigation and reference is also made to the irregularity at the lower level. It has been specifically recorded that the irregularity are not by the Candidates and it cannot happen without the support from the Administration at the local level and there is also abuse of the exercise of power. Therefore, as the report as stated in a very balance way about the facts prevalent candidly stating about the role of the concerned Officer at the local level and also the fact that without their cooperation and support, such appointment could not have been made. It has specifically noted that inspite of the directions by the Director, Primary Education to verify and scrutinize the sports certificate, which would have been included verification of special 64 Candidates, who are said to have been appointed irregularly, it could have been noticed and verification could have been made from the record and the material at that very moment. However since it has not been done, the appointments have been made and even these 64 Candidates have been working for years. There is no explanation in the affidavit either by the respondent No. 3 or the State as to why the direction given by the Director, Primary Education was not followed. However since it has not been done, the appointments have been made and even these 64 Candidates have been working for years. There is no explanation in the affidavit either by the respondent No. 3 or the State as to why the direction given by the Director, Primary Education was not followed. It is stated during the argument that some Inquiry was initiated against the concerned District Primary Education Officer or subordinates but it is also the fact that it has not been taken to a logical conclusion. Further had there been such irregularity including the abuse of the exercise of power at the local level, at the level of District Primary Education Officer, Kheda and its subordinates and also there are irregular appointments, for which, material was also been made available, the complaints could have been filed including criminal complaint for the alleged misconduct or the offence. There is nothing on record to suggest what steps were taken if the record was missing and not available after atleast Committee had insisted for production. It is a serious matter and it could have been taken seriously by filing criminal complaint against the erring Officer at the local level and also by appropriate departmental measures. As stated at the bar, initially no such action was taken and departmental proceedings were initiated belatedly with reluctance. 40. It is in this circumstances, even after the appointment of the Committee for the fact finding and verification on the basis of the material, it has been specifically recorded about the lack of material and inferences are drawn and on the basis of which, action is taken, which is challenged in the present petition. It is in this circumstances, without any material coupled with the different lapses as reflected from the report and when even before the Committee, material is not produced nor any steps have been taken at that stage, the Court would find it difficulty to accept the submissions made by the respondents about the irregularity or the illegal appointments. There is no quarrel that any appointment or the public Employment obtained on the basis of falsehood cannot be sustained and it has to be set aside. There is no quarrel that any appointment or the public Employment obtained on the basis of falsehood cannot be sustained and it has to be set aside. However in the facts of the case, submissions have been made with emphasis about the irregularity and the fraud or in connivance with the local Officer by the Candidate suggesting that as they are beneficially, they would be guilty of the connivance and, therefore, inference has to be drawn, are misconceived. 41. On the other hand, learned Advocates for the petitioners including learned Advocate, Shri Pujara as well as learned Senior Counsel, Shri Shalin Mehta have specifically submitted that even if the irregularity is accepted, the petitioners cannot be blamed, particularly, when after the appointment or during the process, there was stages for scrutiny and verification, which have been done in some cases as submitted by learned Advocate, Ms. Vyas that verification has been made and they have submitted the originals. This itself suggests that it could not have been possible even if the petitioners had desired without the active cooperation and support from the Officer of the District Primary Education Officer and its subordinates. Even the Committee has in the report clearly referred to this aspect. Therefore, the submission about the fraud and the irregularity has to be prima facie established with the material, which is missing in the present case. It is because the material is not available, the inference is sought to be drawn because some of the petitioners are beneficiary. Even if it is accepted that some of the petitioners are beneficiary, entire procedure cannot be set aside particularly when many petitioners having undergone entire selection procedure are appointed and there was verification or scrutiny of the certificates or testimonials. Therefore, the issue of fraud and irregularity does not fulfill the necessary criteria with necessary material and it fall short of the required criteria for inference or the conclusion that the appointments were by way of fraud only. It is at that stage, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mahipal Singh Tomar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2013) 16 SCC 771 referred to and relied upon by learned senior Counsel, Shri Shalin Mehta as well as learned Advocate, Shri K.B. Pujara, is required to be considered. (Para No. 13)." 30. It is at that stage, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mahipal Singh Tomar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2013) 16 SCC 771 referred to and relied upon by learned senior Counsel, Shri Shalin Mehta as well as learned Advocate, Shri K.B. Pujara, is required to be considered. (Para No. 13)." 30. The learned Single Judge has categorically in respect of the 32 respondents, held that even if the irregularity is accepted, the petitioners cannot be blamed, particularly when, after the appointment or during the process, there were stages of scrutiny and verification which have been done and originals are with the Authority. From what is stated in (I) to (VIII) herein above, it is therefore evident that it cannot be said that the Candidates have secured their appointment through fraud. Documents which are part of their record reveal that certificates were issued by the Gujarat State Kabaddi Association. The office bearer of the association is one of such office holders of the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India. The Ministry of Youth Affairs has recognized it. The DPEO officials have, in the course of exercise of recruitment verified certificates, issued receipts pursuant to the preliminary scrutiny of the association carried out by them. It certainly cannot be said to be a case where the Candidate knowingly produced a fraudulent/forged document to secure an appointment. From the language of the Show Cause Notices issued and the order of dismissal, it is evident that the burden was cast upon the Candidate to prove the genuineness of the certificate. The Authority itself has presumed that the certificates are bogus. The entire exercise has been carried out with a pre judged mind only under the guise of complying with the order of PIL. Reading of the judgment dated 20.08.2014, particularly the quoted portions reproduced hereinabove specifically indicate that the Candidates cannot be faulted or be said to have committed a fraud. Even the Inquiry Committee's Report placed on record for the first time in 2018 reveals complete absence of how the conclusion that the Certificates are bogus, has been arrived at. 31. It is in this context that we may refer to the case laws cited by the respective parties. 32. Even the Inquiry Committee's Report placed on record for the first time in 2018 reveals complete absence of how the conclusion that the Certificates are bogus, has been arrived at. 31. It is in this context that we may refer to the case laws cited by the respective parties. 32. In the case of Kamalnayan (supra), the Apex Court has distinguished the case of Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav reported in (2003) 3 SCC 437 where action was promptly taken. In the present case, only when a PIL was filed four years after such appointment did the DPEO thought of taking action. Even otherwise, if it was the case on hand, that the appointments were obtained by fraud, it was for the department to prove it by holding a Departmental Inquiry and issuance of a charge sheet. In the case of Kamal Nayan Mishra (supra), the Apex Court observed as under:- "15. A confirmed Government servant is the holder of a civil post entitled to the benefits of the safeguards provided by Article 311 of the Constitution. On the other hand, a probationer does not have any substantive right to hold the post, and is not entitled to the protection under Article 311. A Probationer's services can be dispensed with during the period of Probation, at the end of the Probation period., if his service is found to be unsatisfactory or if he is found to be unfit for appointment. XXX XXX XXX 19 If the appellant had been issued a charge-sheet or a show-cause notice he would have had an opportunity to explain the reason for answering the queries in column 12 in the manner he did. He could have explained that he did not understand the queries properly and that he was instructed to furnish the information as on the date of appointment. In fact his contention that he was required to answer the queries in Column 12 with reference to the date of his appointment, finds support from the termination order, which says that the appellant was terminated for giving wrong information and concealment of facts in the attestation form at the time of initial recruitment. In fact his contention that he was required to answer the queries in Column 12 with reference to the date of his appointment, finds support from the termination order, which says that the appellant was terminated for giving wrong information and concealment of facts in the attestation form at the time of initial recruitment. This clearly implies that he was expected to reply the queries in Column 12 with reference to his initial appointment, even though Clauses 12(b) and (c) of the form sated that the information should be as on the date of signing of the attestation form. The explanations given by the appellant, would have certainly made a difference to the finding on guilt and the punishment to be imposed. But he could not give the said explanations as there was no show-cause notice or enquiry. The termination order is also unsustainable, as the statement therein that the appellant had given wrong information and concealed the facts at the time of initial recruitment, is erroneous. XXX XXX XXX 24. The termination of the appellant without an Inquiry or hearing was illegal and invalid. In the normal course, we would have set aside the termination and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits, reserving liberty to the employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings. But the peculiar facts of this case require us to adopt a slightly different approach to do complete justice between the parties." 33. The learned Single Judge has also rightly drawn support from the case of Mahipalsingh Tomar (supra). In the facts of the present case, the State Government resolved on 19.11.2012 to appoint a four member Committee. The Committee issued notices to Vidya Sahayaks to remain present with their certificates and original call letters etc. A report was made on 19.01.2013. Status Report was filed on 20.09.2013. Show cause notice and termination order followed. Neither did the Inquiry Committee categorically record as to how certificates were bogus or what was the basis of arriving at such a conclusion. That apart, the burden to prove otherwise was shifted on the Candidates contrary to the settled principle. It is in these facts that it will be noteworthy to reproduce the relevant paras of Mahipalsingh Tomar (supra):- "12. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and scanned the records of all the appeals. That apart, the burden to prove otherwise was shifted on the Candidates contrary to the settled principle. It is in these facts that it will be noteworthy to reproduce the relevant paras of Mahipalsingh Tomar (supra):- "12. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and scanned the records of all the appeals. Since there is no dispute between the parties that copy of the report prepared by the District Magistrate was not supplied to any of the appellants and no action oriented notice or opportunity of hearing was given to them proposing cancellation of their placement as Principals and termination of their services, there is no escape from the conclusion that the decision taken by the State Government and consequential actions taken by the Director and the Management of the Colleges were nullity and the laboured exercise undertaken by the High Court to record a finding that placement of the Appellants in the particular colleges was void was not at all warranted. 13. It is neither the pleaded case of the Respondents nor has it been argued before us that any of the Appellants was instrumental in his/her placement in the particular college or change of placement from one College to the other. It has also not been suggested that the Appellants or any one of them had misled the Director in the matter of his/her placement in the particular college or used undue influence for securing placement in the particular College. Therefore, the Appellants could not have been condemned unheard by the State Government and the Director by being denied the bare minimum opportunity to controvert the finding recorded by the District Magistrate and to show cause that there was no valid ground or justification to cancel his/her placement. The Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error by non-suiting them by invoking the proposition laid down in Mohd. Sartaj v. State of UP. (supra), Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (supra) and State of Manipur v. Y. Token Singh (supra). 34. Decisions on which Mr. Munshaw had placed reliance would not apply to the facts of the case. In those cases, the Candidates had either omitted consciously in supplying necessary particulars, or the caste certificates produced on investigation were held to be bogus on a detailed examination by the Scrutiny Committee. Here, a mere Inquiry Committee was formed triggered by a PIL. Munshaw had placed reliance would not apply to the facts of the case. In those cases, the Candidates had either omitted consciously in supplying necessary particulars, or the caste certificates produced on investigation were held to be bogus on a detailed examination by the Scrutiny Committee. Here, a mere Inquiry Committee was formed triggered by a PIL. The report of the four men Committee nowhere suggested how the Committee had come to a conclusion about the certificates being bogus. It only presumed that what was produced was bogus. The report was never supplied to the Candidates. The exercise was therefore in breach of principles of Natural Justice. 35. We are therefore of the opinion that there is no material to establish that the respondents of LPA 372 of 2019 to LPA 403 of 2019 obtained appointments by fraud. The Committee had no material and an inference drawn on the basis of presumption and shifting of the burden on the Candidates was entirely contrary to law. 36. We are in agreement with the findings of the learned Single judge and therefore LPAs 372 of 2019 to 403 of 2019 are required to be dismissed. LPA 310 to LPA Nos. 370 of 2019 37. This is a group of 61 LPAs in which it is the case of the appellants that they were excess appointees. They were dismissed by a separate order of the same date i.e. 23.09.2014. Their dismissal was based on the premise that their appointments were made beyond the advertised vacancies. 38. We have, while discussing the facts of earlier batch of appeals, considered the status report, where reference was made to these wrongful appointments to the extent of 321, though posts advertised were 257. The respondents on the same lines on the basis of the same report were found to be in excess and therefore faced the axe. 39. Factual details preceding their dismissal need not be reiterated. 40. The case of the appellant here is that though there was no select list or wait list, and permission from the Director of Primary Education, 64 appointments in excess of the vacancies were made. Affidavits in reply filed by the DPEO indicate that the stand of the appointing Authority was that 257 Candidates were appointed out of which 15 had resigned. Affidavits in reply filed by the DPEO indicate that the stand of the appointing Authority was that 257 Candidates were appointed out of which 15 had resigned. On the Inquiry Committee being appointed it was found that no record such as call letters, details of the camp or copies of appointment orders was available with the appellant. 41. Mr. Munshaw, learned Counsel for the appellants in these appeals would therefore contend that the present respondents would have no right to continue as Vidya Sahayaks on account of the fact that they are appointed in excess of the vacancies and therefore they have no right to continue in the post. These persons are continuing illegally in addition to the 32 respondents of the previous appeals. 42. Ms. Mamta Vyas, Ms. Shachi Mathur, Mr. Nirzar Desai and Mr. Shalin Mehta have made submissions in writing. The gist of the submissions so made are:- (A) Of the 257 posts filled in, 11 vacancies have occurred due to resignation irrespective of the 32 of the sports quota. (B) Call letters were issued. A duly constituted selection Committee received all original documents and a receipt was issued. The respondents are working on the posts. The affidavit further reveals that 10 vacancies have occurred due to cancellation of appointee's physically handicapped certificates and bogus marksheets. (C) That there are vacancies and their appointments were made on due selection. The submission is that 32 respondents appointed on bogus certificates be relieved and therefore there will be substantial vacancies in which the respondents can be accommodated. (D) According to Ms. Shachi Mathur, persons less meritorious on the list have: found place and therefore the concerned respondents of LPA 318 of 2019 cannot be denied appointment. (E) Mr. Nirzar Desai, in LPA 313 of 2019 relied on a Government Resolution dated 18.09.2007 which provides for preparation of waiting list. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust v. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel reported in (2012) 9 SCC 310 . 43. Reading of the order of dismissal in context of the Inquiry Committees Report and its findings would indicate that the only ground on which the order of dismissal was passed in context of the present respondents was absence of material available regarding these appointees'. 43. Reading of the order of dismissal in context of the Inquiry Committees Report and its findings would indicate that the only ground on which the order of dismissal was passed in context of the present respondents was absence of material available regarding these appointees'. The report indicated that (a) the only basis on which the dismissal order was passed was that there is nothing on record to show that the Candidates were in fact appointed. (b) The affidavit in reply filed by the DPEO specifically stated that there is no record available with the DPEO. The contention therefore was that such appointees are back door entries. 44. Reading of the affidavits collectively would reveal that it is the case of the appellants that 64 appointees were beyond the select list. Such a list was never prepared. The affidavits further indicate that there have been about 11 resignations and 10 suspensions from the category of physically handicapped Candidates. At this point of time, the rejoinder affidavit filed in SCA 14226 of 2014 from which LPA 314 of 2019 dated 27.07.2018 is perused, the averments indicate resignations. An affidavit qua the report affirmed on 25.09.2018 filed by one Patel Rinalben Kantilal is on record. This is found on the record of the original papers of the Special C.A. Reading of the affidavit reveals certain additional information which reads as under:- "5. If we look at the report and affidavit both are contradictory which are provided hereinafter. While issuing the show-cause notice and directed the petitioners and others to remain present before the Committee, petitioner remains present and submitted details reply along with original certificate of qualification. Petitioner has never produced sports certificate which can be seen from the receipt which is given to the petitioner. (1) Alongwith the report the documents at page No. 272 to 293 wherein the signature of all interview Committee member is there. If we look at the page No. 294 there is no signature of interview Committee members. In fact after sr. No. 12 (page No. 294) the other name which are shown are added afterwards. Petitioner is having the copy of 12 Candidates list with the signature of interview Committee members which is annexed as annexure-"ii". If we look at the page No. 294 there is no signature of interview Committee members. In fact after sr. No. 12 (page No. 294) the other name which are shown are added afterwards. Petitioner is having the copy of 12 Candidates list with the signature of interview Committee members which is annexed as annexure-"ii". (2) At page No. 277 in the top it is mentioned that 14 Candidates are required to be appointed in ST Category whereas at page No. 294 two more Candidates at sr. No. 13 & 14 namely Chauhan Bhaveshkumar Babubhai and Jamliya Mitali Kantilal are called and given appointment from waiting list. These two Candidates are even appointed and they are also extended the benefit of full salary after completion of 5 years. From this it is clear that when resignation of Candidates from General and Roaster category are given of 13 Candidates, these two Candidates from S.T Category and petitioner from General category is called. (3) At page No. 298 there is a mention at top that on the 9th round Candidates are called from waiting list. In the bottom of that page there is a signature of all interview members such as in the petitioners case also when in the 12th round petitioner was called from waiting list, signature of all Committee members are also shown. Copy of the said is annexed as Annexure-"III". From this it is clear that waiting list was prepared and was operated and Candidates were called upto 12th round also. The said Mitaliben was given appointed on 18.02.2009 whereas petitioner is appointed on 07.02.2009. From this it is clear that waiting list is operated. (4) For 16 Candidates are given appointment i.e. 14 from the first merit list and 2 from waiting list. Their names are Jamliya Mitali and Chauhan Bhavesh. If waiting list Candidates from ST Category is operated then similar general category also waiting list is operate. In the notice dated 01.07.2013 Officers have accepted that 11th round is made by the Authority.] 6. In the report at page 378 as against the name of the petitioner in the remark column it is mentioned that they have not produced the original documents. In the petition. All necessary documents which are produced is mentioned. In the notice dated 01.07.2013 Officers have accepted that 11th round is made by the Authority.] 6. In the report at page 378 as against the name of the petitioner in the remark column it is mentioned that they have not produced the original documents. In the petition. All necessary documents which are produced is mentioned. Over and above these one Unnatiben Patel in her petition has filed the affidavit at page 89 to 92 on stamp paper of Rs. 20/which is received by the Officer concern. If we look at the signature it tallies with the signature of page 304 and 305 from this it is clear that DPEO has filed false affidavit. 7. What is stated herein above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and I believe the same to be true." 45. What therefore is evident is that though the stand of the appellants in these appeals is that 61 respondents are in a way "ghost appointments" sans the vacancies advertised, that they were called and participated in an interview pursuant to the exercise of selection is evident from the pleadings. That they did apply but against non-existent vacancies, may be a handiwork of the officials working in connivance with each other, however interest of such appointees cannot be over looked. 46. Therefore, looking to the fact that admittedly though no material is on record and the merit position/ranking of these 61 Candidates is available, the DPEO - appellant is directed to rework and consider the vacancy position on the 257 vacancies advertised viz-a-viz these appellants keeping in mind the averments made in the rejoinder and the additional reply showing the subsequent event of resignations. The DPEO is directed to reassess the actual number of vacancies that remain unfilled from the 257 vacancies after accommodating the 32 respondents of the Sports Certificates Quota in whose favour we have held the dismissals bad. The appellant is further directed to work out the remaining unfilled vacancies and such vacancies be allotted to the 61 respondents inter se based on their merit. The respondents who come within the zone of consideration be retained as if the order of dismissal does not operate. The appellant is further directed to work out the remaining unfilled vacancies and such vacancies be allotted to the 61 respondents inter se based on their merit. The respondents who come within the zone of consideration be retained as if the order of dismissal does not operate. The remaining excess number of respondents Candidates may at the option of the DPEO/State be continued as Vidya Sahayaks in the event there is work by considering creation of supernumerary posts if their service record so far is found satisfactory otherwise. Till such exercise as above is undertaken by the appellant and the State, the 61 respondents shall be retained in service. A decision on the re-adjustment/reworking of vacancies as directed hereinabove be done within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Appeals Nos. 310 of 2019 to LPA No. 370 of 2019 are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid directions. LPA Nos. 372 of 2019 to LPA No. 403 of 2019 are dismissed accordingly.

District Primary Education Officer v. Patel Kiritkumar Kantilal