JUDGMENT : 1. Since the present group of petitions arise out of the same issue and facts, the same are heard and decided analogously by this common judgment and order. 2. All the writ-petitioners are seeking a direction to consider their case and grant similar reliefs to the petitioners, which are granted to the original petitioners / opponents of Letters Patent Appeal No.535 of 2017 and allied matters. 3. All the petitioners had applied to the post of Shikshan Sahayak, Secondary Grant-in-Aid School, pursuant to the advertisement published in the month of April 2016, accordingly, the merit-list was prepared by the State and the present petitioners have given their choice of posting as per the preference indicated in their application forms. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that they were not offered the post as per their preference, which were indicated in the application forms. The aforesaid selection process, which was initiated pursuant to the advertisement of April 2016, was challenged before this Court by filing various writ-petitions, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court set aside the entire recruitment process, which constrained the State authorities to challenge the said judgment and order before the Division Bench by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.535 of 2017 and allied matters, which were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 11.01.2018 by issuing various directions, one of those which was indicated in paragraph No.7(4) to the effect that the order passed by the Division Bench only applies to those candidates, who have approached this Court by filing the writ-petitions. 5. It appears that thereafter, the present petitioners filed various writ-petitions before this Court, however, the same were disposed of with a direction to the State Government to decide the case of the petitioners in view of the judgment and order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.535 of 2017 and allied matters. Accordingly, the State Government considered the representation and rejected the same for the reasons that the said judgement of the Division Bench would not apply in their cases, as the State Government was prohibited to do so in view of the aforesaid paragraph No.7(4) since the judgment of the Division Bench only applies to the writ-petitioners, who had approached this Court. 6. 6. The petitioners, thereafter, preferred a Review Application on the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.535 of 2017 being Civil Application (Review) No.292 of 2021, which was disposed of by an order dated 16.07.2021 by deleting the observations made in paragraph No.7(4) of the judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.535 of 2017 and allied matters. It was observed by the Division Bench that accordingly, the case of the present petitioners may be considered independently on its own merits. The petitioners again made a representation in view of the order dated 16.07.2021 passed in Civil Application (Review) No.292 of 2021, which was rejected by the impugned orders, which are challenged in the present writ-petitions. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Sudhansu Jha has submitted that after the observations made by the Division Bench in the order dated 16.07.2021 in Civil Application No.292 of 2021, the respondents were required to give the same benefits, which are given to the original petitioners, who were the opponents of Letters Patent Appeal No.535 of 2017 and allied matters. He has submitted that subsequently the Division Bench has deleted paragraph No.7(4) of the judgment dated 11.01.2018, which restricted the benefits to those petitioners only, hence the present petitioners are also entitled to the same benefits, which are extended to 63 candidates. Learned advocate Mr. Jha has submitted that out of 63 petitioners, 40 of such petitioners have already resumed their duties in the schools, which were allotted to them and the present petitioners cannot be discriminated and they are required to be placed in the same school as per the order of preferences, which has been given to the other petitioners, who had initially approached this Court. Thus, it is submitted that the same benefit can be extended as per the preference. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Jha placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., 1985 (2) S.C.C. 648 . 8. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Thus, it is submitted that the same benefit can be extended as per the preference. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Jha placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., 1985 (2) S.C.C. 648 . 8. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval has submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefits, of the judgment of the Division Bench, after period of so many years, as if such exercise is undertaken, all the teachers, who have been accommodated pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench and other teachers would be disturbed, who are serving in the concerned places. Learned AGP has submitted that by the order dated 16.07.2021 passed in Civil Application No.292 of 2021, the Division Bench, while deleting the observations made in paragraph No.7(4) of the judgment and order dated 11.01.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.535 of 2017 and allied matters, has clarified that the applicants/ present petitioners will not get right similar to those of the earlier petitioners, however, their claims were ordered to be considered independently on its own merits. Learned AGP has submitted that after the aforesaid directions, the cases of the petitioners have been considered independently on merits and by the impugned orders, their cases were rejected individually and also by placing reliance on the order dated 16.06.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.16191 of 2018. It is submitted that in an identical set of facts, this Court has rejected the petition, however, he has fairly admitted that the said order was passed prior to the order dated 16.07.2021 passed in the review application. Learned AGP placed reliance on Paragraph No.10 of the said order and submitted that even if individual case of the petitioner is concerned, they would be governed by observations made in Paragraph No.10 of the order dated 16.06.2021. Learned AGP further placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of R. Muthukumar & Ors. vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Tangedco & Ors., 2022 (3) S.C.C. 240. 9. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. CONCLUSION 10. The entire case of the petitioners hinges of three orders passed by this Court. Learned AGP further placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of R. Muthukumar & Ors. vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Tangedco & Ors., 2022 (3) S.C.C. 240. 9. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. CONCLUSION 10. The entire case of the petitioners hinges of three orders passed by this Court. (i) The judgment and order dated 11.01.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.535 of 2017 and the allied matters; (ii) The order dated 16.06.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.16191 of 2018; and (iii) The order dated 16.07.2021 passed in Civil Application (Review) No.292 of 2021. 11. All the petitioners, after undertaking the recruitment process conducted pursuant to the advertisement published in the month of April 2016, are seeking re-appointment on the post of Shikshan Shahayak, as per their choice filled in the option forms. Presently, all the petitioners are working at the different places. The aforesaid recruitment was subject matter of challenge before this Court. The entire recruitment process set aside by the Coordinate Bench, which was further carried in appeal by the State authorities in Letters Patent Appeal No.535 of 2017 and allied matters. The Division Bench, by the judgment and order dated 11.01.2018, disposed of the Letters Patent Appeal and allied matters by observing thus:- “[7.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above more particularly the broad consensus between the respective parties recorded hereinabove, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.20332/2016 and other allied Special Civil Applications is hereby modified and the present Letters Patent Appeals are disposed of with following directions and observations. 1. That as and when fresh recruitment process in future is undertaken, before filling up the posts, the original petitioners shall be offered the appointments in the District/Schools of their choice/option as mentioned in their respective applications for the recruitment in question, subject to availability of the posts in the respective categories/class/subject etc. 1. That as and when fresh recruitment process in future is undertaken, before filling up the posts, the original petitioners shall be offered the appointments in the District/Schools of their choice/option as mentioned in their respective applications for the recruitment in question, subject to availability of the posts in the respective categories/class/subject etc. Therefore, it is directed that before the fresh recruitment process begins and/or exercise for fresh recruitment is undertaken, the original petitioners herein shall be intimated the Districts/Schools in which the posts are required to be filled in, however subject to the availability of the posts in the particular class/reservation and the subject and if the original petitioners so choose, they may be offered the posting by way of transfer as one time measure and as a special case in the District/School of their choice/option as per their applications for the recruitment in question. It is observed that in case any of the original petitioner does not avail the opportunity in future, it can be said that they have waived their right of getting the appointment in the District/School of their choice/option given in the applications. 2. It is also further observed that out of those original petitioners who as such have not resumed their duties as offered by the appellants herein-original respondents, they may resume their duties at the respective Districts/Schools which are offered to them within a period of four weeks from today and as agreed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – State, the State Government shall see to it that all those original petitioners who have not resumed the duties yet, if they resume the duties within a period of four weeks from today, they are permitted to resume the duties by the concerned schools. It any of the petitioners does not resume the duties within four weeks from today at the schools offered to them, they shall lose their right of getting appointment with respect to the recruitment in question. 3. The present order shall also govern the petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos.2867/2017, 2909/2017 and 4251/2017 also. 4. The present order shall be applicable to only those candidates who have approached before this Court by way of present Special Civil Applications and the same shall not be applicable to any other candidate who as such have not made any grievance till date. 5. 4. The present order shall be applicable to only those candidates who have approached before this Court by way of present Special Civil Applications and the same shall not be applicable to any other candidate who as such have not made any grievance till date. 5. It is observed that the present order and the arrangement is directed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and with a view to see that all those candidates who have already resumed the duties are not affected. It is required to be noted that as such it is found that as such the State Government has not followed the procedure for filing up the post in question, as required to be followed as per the Rules, 2011 and therefore, with a view to avoid any further complication, the present order is passed. 6. While disposing of the present Letters Patent Appeals, it is further directed that as and when fresh recruitment process starts, the State Government must follow the procedure as required to be followed as per the Rules, 2011 so that such a situation may not arise again. [8.0] With above directions and observations, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.20332/2016 and other allied petitions stand modified to the aforesaid extent. All these Letters Patent Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.” 12. The Division Bench has set aside the judgment and order of the Coordinate Bench holding the recruitment as bad. As per the directions issued therein, the Division Bench has restricted the directions to the writ-petitioners only, who had approached this Court, as recorded in Paragraph No.7(4). Accordingly, all the concerned respondent-teachers of Letters Patent Appeal and allied matters, were issued the appointment orders, and they were posted as one time transfer, as a special case. Since, the petitioners did not approach the Court at that relevant time by filing writ-petitions, after the aforesaid decisions, they filed the writ-petitions, claiming the benefits arising out of the judgment and order of the Division Bench. Since, the petitioners did not approach the Court at that relevant time by filing writ-petitions, after the aforesaid decisions, they filed the writ-petitions, claiming the benefits arising out of the judgment and order of the Division Bench. The Coordinate Bench directed the State Government to consider the representation in light of the judgment and order dated 11.01.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.535 of 2017 and allied matters, which were rejected by the State authorities on the ground that the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench would not apply in cases of the present petitioners since the directions are confined to only those petitioners, who had approached earlier. Therefore, the petitioners filed Civil Application (Review) No.292 of 2021 and allied matters before the Division Bench and by the order dated 16.07.2021, the Division Bench deleted Paragraph No.7(4), which restricted the applicability of the judgment to only those petitioners who had approached earlier before this Court. The Division Bench, while disposing of the review application, has observed thus:- “6. We, accordingly, modify the judgment of the Division Bench dated 11.01.2018 by deleting para-7(4) thereof. 7. We, however, make it clear that by virtue of this order the applicants will not get a right similar to those of petitioners, however, their claims may be considered independently on its own merits.” 13. Accordingly, the petitioners made representation, which have been rejected by various orders, which are impugned in the present writ-petitions. The petitioners are claiming the similar benefits of those petitioners, who were the respondent-teachers in the Letters Patent Appeal. In view of the aforesaid order, subsequently, the Division Bench, in the review application, has clarified that by virtue of the said order passed in the review application the present petitioners will not get the similar right to those of the petitioners of the original writ-petitioners/ respondent of Letters Patent Appeal and their claims are ordered to be considered individually on its own merits. The State Government by the impugned orders have thereafter considered various aspects and has rejected the case of the petitioners by observing that since the entire recruitment is over and there is no provision of transfer at this stage, from a grant-in-aid, secondary and higher secondary school, the request cannot be acceded. The State Government by the impugned orders have thereafter considered various aspects and has rejected the case of the petitioners by observing that since the entire recruitment is over and there is no provision of transfer at this stage, from a grant-in-aid, secondary and higher secondary school, the request cannot be acceded. It is also observed that pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.04.2016, all the recruitment process is over and posts of 5652 Shikshan Sahayaks are filled-in and the candidates have been accommodated as per their merit-cum-preference in school. In the impugned orders the authority has also placed reliance on the order passed by the Coordinate Bench dated 16.06.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.16191 of 2018. 14. It is pertinent to note that in a similar case with similar relief, one of the Shikshan Sahayaks identically situated to the petitioners, who approached by filing Special Civil Application No.16191 of 2018, the Coordinate Bench has rejected the said application vide order dated 16.06.2021 by observing thus : “8. Having considered the rival submissions of he parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that the issue of selection pursuant to the Advertisement of which the selection of petitioner and District allotment was very much in question before this Court in Special Civil Application No.20511 of 2016 and allied matters, which was carried in Appeal by the State by Letters Patent Appeal No.43 of 2018 and allied matters, wherein the process of preparing the first merit list and second merit list appears to have been confirmed by the Division Bench and therefore, there cannot be any scope of interfering or considered the submission now made by learned Advocate about the illegality in preparing first merit list and second merit list. 9. Moreover, the parity that the petitioner claims is also not available to him in view of more particularly observations made in para-4 of the order in Letters Patent Appeal. 10. Even otherwise, submission made by learned AGP needs to be considered affirmatively that the claim of the petitioner for posting was belated and now, the candidates who claims posting have been placed properly at their respective place and any interference will affect other candidates without there being made parties. 11. 10. Even otherwise, submission made by learned AGP needs to be considered affirmatively that the claim of the petitioner for posting was belated and now, the candidates who claims posting have been placed properly at their respective place and any interference will affect other candidates without there being made parties. 11. Lastly, the petitioner has himself given option of nine places where he could be posted and the place of posting namely Dahod being one of the option offered to the petitioner and the petitioner had accepted. In that case, there is no Fundamental Right of the petitioner to work at the same place. The Court does not find any illegality in offering posting to the petitioner at Dahod instead of Jamnagar as prayed by the petitioner.” 15. In the aforenoted paragraph No.8, the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.43 of 2018 and allied matters (LPA No.535 of 2017) is also considered. It is the case of the petitioners that the Coordinate Bench, while passing the aforesaid order rejecting the petition has not considered the subsequent order passed by the Division Bench in review application being Civil Application No.292 of 2021 deleting paragraph No.7(4), the aforementioned order dated 16.06.2021 will not apply to the case of the present petitioners. Assuming that the observations made in Paragraph No.8 of the order dated 16.06.2021 cannot be made applicable to the petitioners then also the petitioners have not escaped in view of the observations made in paragraph No.10 of the same order, wherein, independent of the observations made in Paragraph No.8 of the said order, the Coordinate Bench has rejected the writ petition of similarly situated teachers by observing that “ Even otherwise, submission made by learned AGP needs to be considered affirmatively that the claim of the petitioner for posting was belated and now, the candidates who claims posting have been placed properly at their respective place and any interference will affect other candidates without there being made parties”. Further also, it is observed that the petitioner therein had already opted for 9 places where he could be posted and placed, and there is no fundamental right of such teacher to insist to work at a particular place. In the present case, the petitioners are also claiming a particular choice of posting as per the application forms. Further also, it is observed that the petitioner therein had already opted for 9 places where he could be posted and placed, and there is no fundamental right of such teacher to insist to work at a particular place. In the present case, the petitioners are also claiming a particular choice of posting as per the application forms. A perusal of the form filled in by the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.19086 of 2021 reveals that there are 29 posts for preference, which are given in the application form. The petitioners are posted as per the place of posting incorporated in the application forms. This Court has no reason to deviate from the observations made in the order dated 16.06.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.16191 of 2018 only on the sole reason that the said order has been passed prior to the order dated 16.07.2021 passed in the review application being Civil Application No.292 of 2021. The Division Bench, while disposing of the Civil Application of review, has clarified that the present petitioners will not be entitled to the similar benefit to those of earlier petitioners, and hence they cannot claim the same reliefs, which have been granted to the teachers of Letters Patent Appeal No.535 of 2017 and allied matters. The reliance placed by learned advocate Mr. Jha in the judgment in case of Inder Pal Yadav & Ors. (supra) will not come to the rescue of the petitioners since the same will not apply to the facts of the present case in view of the specific observations of the Division Bench in the order dated 16.07.2021 passed in the review application filed by the present petitioners. The entire recruitment process is over and 5652 Sikshan Sahayaks are appointed. Hence, any direction issued at this stage will have a cascading effect on those teachers who have been appointed and posted at their respective places. 16. Thus, the present writ-petitions fail. RULE is discharged.