JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Sr. Advocate Mr.G. M. Joshi appearing with learned Advocate Mr.Vyom Shah for the petitioners in SCA Nos.3813, 3808 & 13620 of 2021, Nos.14974 & 12543 of 2020, learned Advocate Mr.Nikul Soni appearing for the petitioners in SCA Nos.5076, 9762, 5403 & 9752 of 2021, learned Advocate Mr.N.Y. Shukla for the petitioners in SCA No.13202 of 2020, learned Advocate Mr.Ratanpara appearing for the petitioners in SCA No.13384 & 13555 of 2020, learned Advocate Mr.H. C. Buch for learned Advocate Mr.Abhisst Thaker for the petitioners in SCA No.7585 of 2020, and learned AGP Mr.Utkarsh Sharma for the respondent State in all the matters. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of Rule. 3. In the present group of petitions, the petitioners are more or less seeking similar prayers and raising common issues and, therefore, they are taken up together for final disposal. 4. This Court is called upon to decide the period during which the petitioners were required to clear Course on Computer Concepts (herein after ‘CCC’ for short) Examination as per the policy of the State Government in this regard, therefore, facts as much as relevant for the purpose of deciding the present group of petitions would be narrated herein after. At this stage, this Court observes that since there appears to have been certain developments in the interregnum, which may vary from petitioner to petitioner and whereas since it also clearly appears to this Court that the issue involved is common, this Court does not propose to deal with individual facts and also orders passed by the State Government in case of individual petitioners and whereas this Court deems it appropriate to observe that based upon the final findings of this Court, necessary and appropriate final order would be passed. At this stage, it is further clarified that while individual facts may not be touched upon, but at the same time, none of the relevant facts necessary for deciding the present petitions is being left out, and whereas it is to ensure unnecessary repetition of the facts, more particularly since it appears to this Court that a legal issue is involved, such a course is being adopted. 5. All the petitioners in this group of petitions were originally appointed as Forest Guards during the period between 2007 to 2009, except four petitioners of Special Civil Application No.7585 of 2020. 5. All the petitioners in this group of petitions were originally appointed as Forest Guards during the period between 2007 to 2009, except four petitioners of Special Civil Application No.7585 of 2020. It would also be relevant to mention here that the petitioners as per the extant policy of the State Government had been appointed on five years fixed term and fixed salary based contract and whereas upon successful completion of such appointment, the petitioners were to be appointed in regular pay-scale. 6. It also appears that some of the petitioners have been promoted to the post of Foresters and whereas on account of the Department considering the petitioners as having not cleared the CCC Examination, either they have been reverted or some of the petitioners are apprehending reversion. At the same time, remaining petitioners are apprehending their non-promotion on account of the Department considering the petitioners as having not cleared the CCC Examination, during the period stipulated. 7. At this stage, it also requires to be mentioned that all the petitioners have cleared the CCC Examination twice, i.e. once at the stage of entry in service and the second time at a later stage i.e. between 2016 to 2019 generally, further there is not a single petitioner in this group of petitions, who has not cleared CCC Examination and whereas the issue which this Court is called upon to decide his as to what would be the period during which the petitioners as per the policy of the Government prevalent be required to pass the CCC Examination. 8. The main contention on behalf of the petitioners being that during the period when the petitioners had joined service, as per the policy of the State Government prevalent at that time, passing of CCC Examination was pre-requisite for entry in Government service. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of the policy prevalent at that relevant point of time, the petitioners had cleared the CCC Examination prior to their entry in service. It is also the case of the petitioners that while statutory Rules were in existence during the period when the petitioners had joined with regard to passing of CCC Examination, but such requirement after entry in service was prescribed for probationers and not for employees appointed on contractual basis. It is also the case of the petitioners that while statutory Rules were in existence during the period when the petitioners had joined with regard to passing of CCC Examination, but such requirement after entry in service was prescribed for probationers and not for employees appointed on contractual basis. It is further the case of the petitioners that the Rules not being applicable to contractual employees is also evident from the fact that later on the said Rules were amended incorporating requirement of contractual employees passing the CCC Examination after the petitioners had joined the service. It is also the case of the petitioners that while the amended Rules did not contemplate retrospective applicability, even otherwise if the respondents were of the opinion that the petitioners had to comply with the requirement of the amended provision, then also the petitioners were required to be informed in that regard, which was not done. It is also the case of the petitioners that later on since an issue with regard to non-consideration for promotion had arisen, more particularly in context of some of the petitioners not having passed the CCC Examination after entry in service, upon instructions of the respondent Department, the petitioners had cleared the CCC Examination. It is finally the case of the petitioners that they should be considered as per the provisions existing on the date of their entry in service and whereas since most of the petitioners have cleared the CCC Examination as a condition for entry in service any later change in the policy could not adversely prejudice the petitioners. It is also submitted that the petitioners were ready and willing to have passed the CCC Examination at any point of time and since the petitioners were never directed and in view of the ambiguity prevailing and further considering the fact that all the petitioners have cleared the CCC Examination after entry in service, therefore, the petitioners may not be denied any benefits on a specious consideration that the petitioners had not cleared CCC Examination during such time which they were required to do as per the amended provisions. 9. 9. At this stage, it would also be relevant to mention that while this Court was also called upon to decide the validity of service issued by the Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar Open University to some of the petitioners, who had passed CCC Examination from the said University, and whereas it appears that in view of the decisions of the learned Coordinate Benches of this Court and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, the said issue had already been decided in favour of the petitioners as well as the University. 10. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.G.M. Joshi appearing with learned Advocate Mr.Vyom Shah, learned Advocate Mr.Nikul Soni, learned Advocate Mr.N. Y. Shukla, learned Advocate Mr.Ratanpara on behalf of the respective petitioners would submit that the petitioners had been appointed as Forest Guards during the period between 2007 to 2009. It is submitted that at the time of entry of the petitioners in service, primarily four different instructions existed on the aspect of requirement of employees passing of CCC Examination. The said instructions being Circular dated 11.8.2003 which required passing of CCC Examination from the Department of Electronics Accreditation for Computer Courses (herein after ‘DOEACC’ for short) as being mandatory for entry in Government service, Notification dated 26.12.2005 whereby Rule 8(1)(a) had been inserted in the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, whereby requirement of passing CCC Examination through DOEACC was made mandatory for appointment to all posts in the Government, except Class-IV posts. Further, vide a Government Resolution dated 30.9.2006, the Government had published the Gujarat Civil Services Computer Competency Training and Examination Rules, 2006 (herein after referred to as “Rule of 2006”). The same came into force w.e.f. 1.9.2006. Rule 9 of the said Rules required employees appointed by direct recruitment to pass CCC Examination during the period of probation. It appears that non-passing of the said examination during the period of probation or the extended period as contemplated under the Rules of 2006 entailed termination of service. Furthermore, by way of another Resolution dated 30.9.2006, the procedure and syllabus for passing of CCC Examination by Government Employees after entry in service during the period of probation had been prescribed. 11. Furthermore, by way of another Resolution dated 30.9.2006, the procedure and syllabus for passing of CCC Examination by Government Employees after entry in service during the period of probation had been prescribed. 11. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners have contended that none of the four policies of the State Government including statutory Rules required employees appointed on contractual basis i.e. of the category of the petitioners to pass CCC Examination after entry in service. The said submission is elaborated by submitting that Circular dated 11.8.2003 as well as amended Rule 8(1)(a) of Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 inter alia required that CCC Examination had to be passed for appointment to Government service. It is submitted by the learned Advocates that such requirement had been fulfilled by the petitioners, inasmuch as the petitioners had passed the CCC Examination prior to their entry in service. It is further submitted that insofar as Rule 9 of the Gujarat Civil Services Computer Competency Training and Examination Rules, 2006 that such Rule would not be applicable insofar as the petitioners are concerned, more particularly since the said Rules require directly recruited employees to pass the CCC Examination during their period of probation, whereas in case of petitioners there was no probation envisaged since the petitioners were appointed as contractual/ad hoc employees for a period of five years and after completion of five years the petitioners were to be appointed in regular pay-scale. It is also the case of the petitioners that the second Resolution dated 30.9.2006 prescribing procedure would also not be applicable in case of the petitioners since the same only prescribed a procedure for passing of CCC Examination and whereas since as per the Rules only probationers were required to pass CCC Examination after entry in service and whereas the petitioners never underwent any probation period, therefore, the same would not be applicable to the petitioners. 12. Learned Advocates for the petitioners would also draw the attention of this Court to a Circular dated 17.12.2007. 12. Learned Advocates for the petitioners would also draw the attention of this Court to a Circular dated 17.12.2007. It is submitted by the learned Advocates that the said Circular seeks to clarify instructions with regard to passing of CCC Examination and whereas according to Clause-IV of the said Circular, while passing of CCC Examination was a pre-requisite for entry in service or as a process of departmental training and furthermore, the said Circular also clarified that during probation passing of CCC Examination was mandatory insofar as Class-III employees. It is also stated at Clause VIII of the said Circular that after entry in service a Government employee is required to pass the CCC Examination for promotion and higher pay-scale etc., and whereas the equivalent centres for passing of CCC Examination other than DOEACC was also prescribed. Learned Advocates would submit that while it would seem that the said Circular requires that passing of CCC Examination after entry in service was mandatory even for such employees as the petitioners, yet it is submitted that such is not the case. It is submitted that the said Circular states with regard to passing of CCC Examination being a pre-requisite for entry in service and insofar as passing of CCC Examination after entering into service, the Circular specifies that the same should be in accordance with the norms of the Government. It is further submitted that as on that date, the norms of the Government required only probationers to pass CCC Examination after entry in service during the probation period. Thus, it is submitted that the said Circular does not reflect any change in the policy of the Government. 13. Attention is also drawn to a Government Circular dated 13.8.2008 whereby Rule 8(1)(a) of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967 was further amended and whereas instead of certificate from DOEACC only it was prescribed that a certificate of any Institute would suffice certifying basic knowledge of computer application for entry in Government service. 14. Learned Advocates would thereafter draw the attention of this Court to Notification dated 4.6.2009. It is submitted by the learned Advocates that by way of the said Notification dated 4.6.2009, Rule 9A came to be inserted in the Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967. 14. Learned Advocates would thereafter draw the attention of this Court to Notification dated 4.6.2009. It is submitted by the learned Advocates that by way of the said Notification dated 4.6.2009, Rule 9A came to be inserted in the Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967. Learned Advocates would submit that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9A inter alia stipulated that a candidate appointed on contractual basis shall be required to pass the CCC Examination as prescribed in Gujarat Civil Services Computer Competency Training and Examination Rules 2006 during the contractual service period. Learned Advocates would submit that for the first time the State Government had made Rules whereby employees appointed on contractual basis were required to pass the examination during the period of contract. It is submitted in this regard that since most of the petitioners had either been appointed prior to the date when the said Rule 9A came into effect i.e. 4.6.2009 or had passed the examination prior to the said date and were appointed on the basis of passing of CCC Examination, the said requirement would not apply to the petitioners. It is further submitted that almost all the petitioners barring petitioner No.7 of SCA No.5076 of 2021 and petitioner of SCA No.12543 of 2020, had been appointed prior to the date when the Rule had come into effect. It is further submitted that insofar as petitioner No.7 of SCA No.5076 of 2021, he had passed the CCC Examination prior to his appointment in service and prior to the Rule having come into effect and hence, rigors of the said Rules would not be applicable to the said petitioner. Insofar as the petitioners of SCA No.12543 of 2020 it is submitted that the said petitioners had passed CCC Examination during contractual period after appointment and, therefore, the requirement of said Rule had been complied with in his case. 15. It is further submitted that in case of petitioners, who had been appointed prior to the Rule coming into force while most of them had cleared the CCC Examination before entry in service in few cases the petitioners had joined service and thereafter passed CCC Examination during the five year contractual period and hence, it could be safely stated that the petitioners had complied with the requirement of the said Sub-Rule. 16. 16. Insofar as the petitioners, who were appointed before the said Sub-Rule came into force and who had also passed CCC Examination before their entry in service, it has been submitted that such employees were not required to pass the examination once again upon Rule 9A being introduced more particularly since, according to learned Advocate, by now it is well settled position that a policy decision could not be made applicable retrospectively. 17. Learned Advocates for the petitioners would further submit that introduction of Rule 9A had also clarified the fact that prior to introduction of the said Sub-Rule, employees who had been appointed on contractual basis were not required to pass the CCC Examination after entry in service. 18. It is further contended by the learned Advocates for the petitioners that in any case even if it is assumed without admitting that Rule 9A could be applied retrospectively then also considering the fact that those petitioners, who had not passed the CCC Examination after entry in service and whereas such petitioners having been appointed prior to the said Rule coming into effect i.e., 4.6.2009 and such petitioners having already passed the said examination before entry in service as per the extant policy, therefore, to have made the policy applicable to such petitioners, it was incumbent upon the State Government to have informed such petitioners about the introduction of Rule 9A in the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967 and also to call upon such petitioners to appear and clear such examination within a stipulated time. It is submitted that having not done so it would not be open for the respondent to deny benefits of seniority, promotion, etc., on the specious ground that such petitioners did not clear CCC Examination as per the mandate of the newly introduced Rule 9A of Rules of 1967. 19. At this stage, it is also submitted by the learned Advocates for the petitioners that at no point of time did the petitioners claim their inability or unwillingness to clear CCC Examination. 19. At this stage, it is also submitted by the learned Advocates for the petitioners that at no point of time did the petitioners claim their inability or unwillingness to clear CCC Examination. It is submitted that the respondent Authorities had issued an order dated 1.1.2019 whereby a list of 47 Forest Guards were published, which included some of the petitioners more particularly petitioners of SCA No.3813 of 2021 and others and whereas it was mentioned that since the said Forest Guards had not submitted CCC Examination Certificate for the purpose of promotion, therefore, the said Forest Guards were not being promoted and whereas their orders of promotion were kept in a sealed cover to be given effect to after such candidates passed the CCC Examination. It is submitted that the petitioners of the said list had immediately appeared and passed the said examination, whereas according to learned Advocates, almost all of the petitioners have got two certificates of CCC Examination i.e. one prior to their entry in service or during the period of contractual employment and second intermittently in the year 2016- 2017-2018 as and when individual petitioner came to know about the requirement of passing the examination, after entry in service being a condition required by the respondent Authorities for consideration for promotion. It is submitted that apart from such petitioners, who are very few in number most of the petitioners have passed CCC Examination for a second time in the year 2019 i.e. after their orders for promotion as Foresters were kept in abeyance. Learned Advocates for the petitioners would submit that such passing of examination immediately upon being directed, reflects upon the fact that at no point of time the petitioners were unwilling or unable to clear the examination in question, rather because of the ambiguous situation prevailing during the time of appointment of the petitioners and since subsequently till 2019, the petitioners had never been called upon to clear the examination for second time, therefore, the petitioners were under a reasonable impression that the requirement of the petitioners to pass CCC Examination got fulfilled when the petitioners had either passed the examination before entry in service or during the period of contractual employment. Learned Advocates would submit that having regard to the ambiguous position prevalent at the time of entry of the petitioners and further considering the petitioners had already passed the CCC Examination at the time of entry in service and immediately upon being told in the year 2019 had once again cleared the examination, therefore, their date on which the petitioners passed the CCC Examination for the first time should be taken as relevant date for the purpose of counting for seniority, promotion, and other benefits. 20. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr.Utkarsh Sharma would vehemently contest these petitions. As against the submissions of the learned Advocates for the petitioners, learned AGP Mr.Utkarsh Sharma would submit that none of the prayers of the petitioners deserves consideration. It is submitted by learned AGP that the petitioners could not be heard to submit that in spite of a very specific Government Policy, yet the petitioners could not be required to pass the CCC Examination after entry in service. Learned AGP would submit that while passing of CCC Examination had become a mandatory pre-requisite after insertion of Rule 8(1)(a) in the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 2005 vide Notification dated 26.12.2005 and whereas by way of introduction of the Gujarat Civil Services Computer Competency Training and Examination Rules, 2006 w.e.f. 1.10.2006 it was also incumbent upon the employees to have passed CCC Examination after entry in service within the stipulated time period, failing which they would be visited with adverse consequences. Learned AGP would further submit that all doubts with regard to contractual employees had been put to rest by insertion of Rule 9A in the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 vide Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009 and whereas after insertion of such Sub-rule, all employees appointed through direct recruitment on contractual basis were required to pass CCC Examination after entering service. Learned AGP would submit that the onus was on the employees like the petitioners to have ensured that they complied with the policy of the State Government and whereas the State Government could not be expected to reach out to individual employees and inform them about the requirement to pass the CCC Examination. Learned AGP would submit that the onus was on the employees like the petitioners to have ensured that they complied with the policy of the State Government and whereas the State Government could not be expected to reach out to individual employees and inform them about the requirement to pass the CCC Examination. As such, learned AGP would submit that even otherwise, prior to introduction of Rule 9A vide G. R. dated 4.6.2009, there existed a Circular dated 1.7.2007, whereby it was clarified by the State Government that in addition to passing of CCC Examination being mandatory for joining Government service, it was also clarified that passing of CCC Examination was also mandatory after entering service. Learned AGP would submit that since the petitioners have not passed the CCC Examination during the requisite period, therefore, any adverse consequence being imposed upon the employees, including reversion, non-consideration for promotion, placement at a lower level in the seniority list, etc., are on account of the negligence of the employee concerned and whereas the State Government and the respondent Authorities have acted well within the mandate of the law. Learned AGP would further submit that since most of the petitioners have appeared in the CCC Examination for a second time, the petitioners would be deemed to have acquiesced to the position that as per the extant policy they were required to pass CCC Examination for a second time. Learned AGP would further submit that having appeared and passed CCC Examination for a second time, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that they were not required to pass the CCC Examination after entering the service. Having regard to such submissions, learned AGP Mr.Utkarsh Sharma would submit that no case for interference by this Court is made out and hence, the present petitions may be rejected. 21. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. Having regard to such submissions, learned AGP Mr.Utkarsh Sharma would submit that no case for interference by this Court is made out and hence, the present petitions may be rejected. 21. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. For the purpose of deciding the present petitions, since it appears to this Court that the Policies of the State Government, as it evolved, with regard to its employees passing CCC Examination are required to be discussed, brief chronology of the policies and to the extent it is applicable is discussed by this Court herein below:- A. Circular dated 11.8.2003: It appears that for the first time the State Government had inter alia made it mandatory for persons seeking direct recruitment in Class-I and Class-II to pass course on Computer Concepts as per the standard of DOEACC or as may be decided by the State Government from time to time; B. Resolutions dated 13.1.2005 and 24.6.2005: By way of these Resolutions the State Government through the GAD had prescribed the syllabus and the courses for CCC Examination. It was clarified that in addition to computer knowledge as per CCC level of DOEACC Society the certificates by Universities, Polytechnics, or Training Institutions with regard to having qualified as per the syllabus mentioned in Schedule to the Resolution was also made acceptable; C. Notification dated 26.12.2005 (Amendment Notification): By way of this Notification, the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2005 was published by the State, whereby Sub-rule (1)(a) was inter alia inserted into the Rules. Sub-rule 8 (1)(a) mandated that no person shall be appointed in Government Service, except Class-IV inferior service, unless the candidate possesses basic knowledge of computer application equivalent to course on CCC of DOEACC Society or of the level determined by the Government from time to time. D. Notification dated 30.9.2006: By way of this Notification, the State Government had notified the Gujarat Civil Services Computer Competency Training and Examination Rules, 2006 w.e.f. 1.10.2006. D. Notification dated 30.9.2006: By way of this Notification, the State Government had notified the Gujarat Civil Services Computer Competency Training and Examination Rules, 2006 w.e.f. 1.10.2006. Rule 9 of the said Rules inter alia envisaging that a Government employee appointed by direct recruitment shall pass the CCC level Examination for Class-III service and CCC+ level Course for Class-I and II services during the period of probation and the extended period and whereas the Rule envisaged that in case of non-passing of the Examination, the employee would be terminated from service and whereas in case he passes the Examination thereafter, he would be reinstated; E. Resolution dated 30.9.2006: By way of this Resolution, the State Government had laid down the procedure for training and holding of CCC Examination; F. Circular dated 1.7.2007: Whereby the State Government had explained/clarified issues with regard to CCC Examination. It would be pertinent to mention that while it is clarified that passing of CCC Examination was a pre-requisite for employment, it was made compulsory to pass the Examination thereafter as a part of departmental training or during the probation period. It is also stated that for the purpose of promotion, the employee concerned is required to pass the CCC Examination ‘as per the requirements’; G. Government Resolution dated 13.8.2008: By way of this Resolution, Sub-rule (1)(a) of Rule 8 was once again amended in the Government Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, and whereas it was envisaged that no person shall be appointed to any post or service, except Class-IV post unless at the time of appointment the person concerned possesses a certificate of basic knowledge of computer application of any Institute; H. Government Resolution dated 13.8.2008: Whereby upon amendment of Rule 8(1)(a) as referred to herein above, the syllabus was declared for the purpose of basic knowledge of computer application and whereas it was clarified that if the candidate has obtained a diploma in Computer Science from any recognized University or Government approved Institution or a Degree or a certificate course and in the Course concerned Computer Science is a subject or has passed Class-X or Class-XII Examination with Computer as one of the subjects, then such certificate would be valid for appointment to the State Government; I. Resolution dated 4.6.2009: Whereby Rule 9A had been inserted in the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967. The said Sub-rule inter alia envisaged that upon appointment by direct selection on contractual basis, the candidate during the stipulated period of services on contractual basis be required to pass the CCC Examination as prescribed by the Gujarat Civil Services Computer Competency Training and Examination Rules, 2006. J. Notification dated 23.10.2015: Whereby the words “or within a period of two years thereafter” had been added at Clause 9(a)(3) of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967, whereby the candidate appointed on contractual basis was required to pass the examination during the period of contractual services or a period of two years thereafter; K. At this stage, it would be necessary to refer to a Resolution dated 16.2.2006, whereby the State Government had inter alia resolved that all direct recruitments for Class-III and Class-IV posts would be contract-based appointments for a period of five years on fixed pay. It would be necessary to mention that while in the General Heading of the Resolution it is mentioned that the appointment by direct recruitment to posts of Class-III and Class-IV of the State Government may be made only as probationary for a fixed period of five years and whereas in the provisions it is clearly mentioned that the appointments shall be considered as contract basis appointments. It would also be relevant to mention that unlike probationary officers no benefit available to any Government employee on regular basis was to be given to the candidates appointed under the Scheme, except a lump sum as mentioned. Most importantly Clause XI of the provisions of the Scheme clearly inter alia mentions that the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 etc., cannot be applied directly to a candidate being appointed under the Scheme and, therefore, the General Administration Department (GAD) shall have to make changes in this regard in the concerned Rules. 22. Having stated the chronology of the policies of the State Government with regard to passing of CCC Examination by persons appointed on direct recruitment, this Court now proposes to examine the applicability of the Rules/Resolutions/Circulars in case of the present petitioners. 22. Having stated the chronology of the policies of the State Government with regard to passing of CCC Examination by persons appointed on direct recruitment, this Court now proposes to examine the applicability of the Rules/Resolutions/Circulars in case of the present petitioners. At this stage it would also be relevant to mention that while a brief account of almost all the Resolutions, Circulars and Rules has been made by the Court herein above, and whereas even Circulars and Resolutions with regard to the procedure and training as well as syllabus have also been mentioned so as to maintain the continuity of the narration and whereas while discussing the substantive applicability of the policies, this Court deems it appropriate not to refer to the Circulars and Resolutions with regard to the procedure, syllabus and training as prescribed by the State with regard to CCC Examination. A. The Circular dated 11.8.2003 and Rule 8(1)(a) of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 2005 amended vide Notification dated 26.12.2005 inter alia requires that all appointments to Class-I to Class-III posts in the State Government by way of direct recruitment, in addition to the candidate possessing the relevant educational qualifications, the candidate shall be required to possess basic knowledge of computer application equivalent to course of CCC of DOEACC Society. It would be relevant to clarify that while Circular dated 11.8.2003 inter alia envisaged knowledge of computer as per the criteria mentioned herein above for Class-I to Class-III posts Rule 8(1)(a) envisaged basic knowledge of computer as being a pre-requisite for recruitment to Class-I, Class-II and Class-III posts. It appears that almost all of the petitioners had fulfilled this criteria by having passed the CCC Examination before appointment. B. Vide Notification dated 30.9.2006, the State Government notified the Gujarat Civil Services Computer Competency Training and Examination Rules, 2006 w.e.f 1.10.2006 and whereas Rule 9 of the said Rules envisaged that a Government employee appointed by direct recruitment shall pass the CCC level Examination for Class-III service and CCC+ level course for Class-II and Class-I service. B. Vide Notification dated 30.9.2006, the State Government notified the Gujarat Civil Services Computer Competency Training and Examination Rules, 2006 w.e.f 1.10.2006 and whereas Rule 9 of the said Rules envisaged that a Government employee appointed by direct recruitment shall pass the CCC level Examination for Class-III service and CCC+ level course for Class-II and Class-I service. It would be relevant to clarify that while there existed a policy which made having basic knowledge on computer equivalent to course on CCC of DOEACC being a prerequisite for entering into service, by way of CCC Rules referred to herein above, it was mandated that in addition to CCC Examination being pre-requisite for entering into service, the candidate is also required to pass the concerned CCC or CCC+ Examination during the period of probation. The petitioners who had been appointed on contractual basis and had never undergone a probation period were not coming under the ambit of the above rule, requiring employees to pass CCC Examination after entry in service during probation period. It would be relevant to mention herein that a few months prior to the Rules being promulgated i.e. on 16.2.2006, the State Government had resolved to appoint candidates inter alia in Class-III posts only on contractual basis for a period of five years on fixed pay. The petitioners having been appointed after 16.2.2006 were as per the policy of the State Government appointed on contractual basis. C. It, thus, appears that while Rule 9 of the CCC Rules envisaged passing of CCC or CCC+ Examination after entry in service during probationary period and whereas by virtue of Government Resolution dated 16.2.2006, since candidates were appointed on contractual basis for a period of five years and whereas it was envisaged that the candidate would be given regular appointment after completion of five years, therefore, for the candidates who came to be appointed on Class-III posts after 16.2.2006 did not have to undergo probation and thus, were not required to pass the CCC Examination during the period of probation after entry in service since there was no probationary service undergone by such employees. D. It appears that Circular dated 1.7.2007, which was a clarificatory Circular, clarified that candidates were required to possess CCC Examination being a prerequisite for entry in service, thereafter candidates during probation period were required to pass CCC or CCC+ Examination. D. It appears that Circular dated 1.7.2007, which was a clarificatory Circular, clarified that candidates were required to possess CCC Examination being a prerequisite for entry in service, thereafter candidates during probation period were required to pass CCC or CCC+ Examination. As noted herein above, since persons like the petitioners did not undergo probation, such clarification would not be applicable to them. E. Vide Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009, Rule 9A came to be inserted in the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 inter alia envisaging that candidates appointed by direction selection on contractual basis shall be required to pass CCC Examination during the contractual period. Vide Notification dated 23.10.2015, Rule 9A referred to herein above had been further amended by permitting the candidates who have been appointed on direct selection on contractual basis to clear the Examination during contractual period or within a period of two years thereafter. The petitioners being appointed on contractual basis before 4.6.2009, neither Rule 9A as it stood at the stage of being brought in the Rules nor the newly inserted Rule alludes to any requirement of such employees like the petitioners to pass CCC Examination during the contractual period or the extended period. 23. Having briefly analyzed the relevant Rules/Resolution and Circulars, whereby policy of the State Government with regard to passing of CCC Examination by its employees had been laid down, this Court now proposes to analyze the policy in relation to the fact situation as well as in the context of the submissions by the learned Advocates for the respective parties. In this group of 13 petitions, while the facts of SCA No.7585 of 2020 being slightly different it would be taken up separately and whereas all the remaining 12 petitions, except for petitioner No.7 of SCA No.5076 of 2021 and the sole petitioner of SCA No.12543 of 2020, all other petitioners have been appointed prior to 4.6.2009. Relevance of the date 4.6.2009 being that for the first time, the State Government by introducing Rule 9A in the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 which required employees appointed on contractual basis to pass the CCC Examination during the period in service on contractual basis. Relevance of the date 4.6.2009 being that for the first time, the State Government by introducing Rule 9A in the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 which required employees appointed on contractual basis to pass the CCC Examination during the period in service on contractual basis. As noted herein above, before 4.6.2009, there existed two separate requirements with regard to passing of the CCC Examination by an employee appointed in Government service i.e. firstly the requirement whereby passing of CCC Examination was a pre-requisite for entry in service, as per Circular dated 11.8.2003 and Sub-rule 8(1)(a) of Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 inserted vide Notification dated 26.12.2005. The second requirement being introduction of the Gujarat Civil Services Computer Competency Training and Examination Rules brought into effect from 1.10.2006, more particularly Rule 9 thereof, which inter alia envisaged that after appointment a candidate during the period of probation an employee shall pass CCC Examination for Class-III and CCC+ Examination for Class-II and Class-I employees. Thus, till Rule 9A had been inserted in the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967, vide Notification dated 4.6.2009, candidates appointed by direct selection on contractual basis were only required to pass the CCC Examination as a prerequisite for entry in service and whereas there was no requirement for the candidates to pass Examination during contractual period. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, since most of the petitioners as observed herein above had been appointed prior to 4.6.2009 and whereas in terms of the extant policy had cleared the CCC Examination from the DOEACC or other equivalent Institute, they had been appointed in service. i. It also requires to be mentioned at this stage that vide Government Resolution dated 16.2.2006, which envisaged appointment by direct recruitment only on contractual basis, it was clarified that Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 as it stood then would not be applicable to candidates appointed under the said Scheme and whereas it was further observed that appropriate arrangements would have to be made by the GAD in that regard. Thus, it is in this regard that Rule 9A came to be inserted in the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 inter alia requiring direct selected candidates appointed on contractual basis to clear CCC Examination within the period of contractual services. Thus, it is in this regard that Rule 9A came to be inserted in the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 inter alia requiring direct selected candidates appointed on contractual basis to clear CCC Examination within the period of contractual services. It could, thus, be held that before 9.6.2009 there did not exist any requirement for candidates appointed by direct selection on contractual basis to clear the CCC Examination during contractual period of service. ii. It would be further relevant to observe that Rule 9A does not envisage retrospective applicability. The Rule inter alia states with regard to a candidate selected or appointed (after the Rule had been introduced) and it does not envisage any candidate appointed after 16.2.2006 to be brought within the ambit of the said Sub-rule. It would also be required to mention that Rule 9A made a substantive change in the policy more particularly a requirement of passing the Examination within a stipulated period, which was hitherto not a mandatory requirement had been inserted in the Rule and that being the position since substantive change was made by the policy the same could not have a retrospective applicability and could only be applied prospectively more particularly since the amendment itself not requiring retrospective applicability. At this stage for better appreciation this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce Rule 9A of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967:- “9A. Appointment to service or post in Subordinate Services or Inferior Services:- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or any rules or orders relating to selection of a person by direct recruitment in the Subordinate Service or Inferior Services, (1) a candidate selected by direct selection or on the result of a competitive examination shall be appointed on contractual basis in accordance with and on such terms and conditions as prescribed by the Government from time to time. (2) a candidate appointed in accordance with sub-rule(1) shall be given, at the end of contractual period, the pay scale prescribed for the concerned post on his performance being found satisfactory during the stipulated period of service on contractual basis; (3) Such candidate shall, during the stipulated period of service on contractual basis, be required to pass the CCC examination for Computer Knowledge as prescribed in Gujarat Civil Service Computer Competency Training and Examination Rules, 2006; (4) Such candidate shall, during the stipulated period of service on contractual basis, be required to undergo pre-service training and pass the post-training examination in accordance with the rules prescribed or as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time; (5) Such candidate shall, after regular appointment, pass and examination in Hindi or Gujarati or both, as the case may be, in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Government from time to time. Provide that subrules (3),(4) and (5) shall not apply to the appointments made to the Inferior Services on fixed pay on contractual basis.” In the considered opinion of this Court, Rule 9A does not envisage retrospective applicability. While Rule 9A(1) and (2) state about candidates selected by direct recruitment to be appointed on contractual basis and after the end of the contractual period, the candidate being given the pay-scale of the post in question, subject to satisfactory performance. Rule 9A(3) states about such candidate requiring to pass the CCC Examination during contractual period (or within two years thereafter – as amended vide Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015). Rules 9(A)(1) and (5) state requirement of passing preservice and post training Examination. It also appears that the said Rule had been introduced in context of the requirement as had been mentioned in Government Resolution dated 16.2.2006, whereby it was stated that since the Government Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967 would not be applicable to the candidates appointed by direct recruitment on contractual basis and hence, appropriate changes were sought to be made in the Rules concerned. The amended Rule 9A of the Government Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967 is the provision envisaged, which would be made applicable for contractual employees. It also appears, as noted herein above, that Rule 9A(1) inter alia envisages a candidate selected by direction selection “shall be appointed” on contractual basis. The amended Rule 9A of the Government Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967 is the provision envisaged, which would be made applicable for contractual employees. It also appears, as noted herein above, that Rule 9A(1) inter alia envisages a candidate selected by direction selection “shall be appointed” on contractual basis. In the considered opinion of this Court, the words “shall be appointed” clearly reveals the intent that the Rule was to be made applicable prospectively and whereas the Rule was not envisaged to apply retrospectively, since the words “has been appointed” or any other words having similar meaning, is not found in the said Sub-rule. It also appears that the Sub-rule i.e. Rule 9A(2) and (3) speak about the candidate, who has been appointed in accordance with Sub-rule (1). Furthermore, no part of the amended rule requires that candidates, who have been appointed prior to the rule being introduced, would also be required to comply with the requirements. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is clearly discernible that Rule 9A after its insertion in the Rules vide Notification dated 4.6.2009 did not envisage retrospective applicability. It would also be relevant to observe that by way of inserting Rule 9A in the Government Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967 vide Notification dated 4.6.2009, a substantive change had been brought in the policy governing employees appointed by way of direct recruitment on contractual basis. As noted herein above, prior to Rule 9A being inserted in Government Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967, insofar as candidate appointed by direct selection on contractual basis, were only required to pass CCC Examination as a pre-requisite for entry in service. Prior to 4.6.2009, where Rule 9A had been inserted in the Rules of 1967, there was no policy of the State Government by way of any Rules, Regulations, or Circulars, whereby it was mandatory for employee appointed by direct selection on contractual basis to pass CCC Examination at any point of time after their entry in service. As noted herein above, it is after Rule 9A came to be inserted more particularly by virtue of Rule 9A(3) that employees appointed by direct selection on contractual basis were required to pass CCC Examination during contractual period. As noted herein above, it is after Rule 9A came to be inserted more particularly by virtue of Rule 9A(3) that employees appointed by direct selection on contractual basis were required to pass CCC Examination during contractual period. Thus, a substantive change had been brought about in the policy and whereas since it is observed by this Court herein above that the said Rule itself is not envisaging retrospective applicability, such retrospective applicability could not be deemed or assumed, more particularly the law in this regard having been well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that any substantive change in the policy would be applicable prospectively only, unless the policy itself states about retrospective applicability. [Commissioner of I.T. (Central-I) New Delhi Vs. Vatika Township Private Limited, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 1 ] iii. It also appears that while Rule 9A had been inserted in the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 on 4.6.2009, there does not appear to be any policy of the State Government for such candidates, who had been appointed in the interregnum period between 16.2.2006 and 4.6.2009 i.e. the period between the policy of the State Government to appoint employees by way of direct recruitment only on contractual basis and the date on which it was made mandatory for employee who have been appointed on contractual basis to pas CCC Examination during the contractual period. The present petitions, more or less deal with such special class of persons, who had been appointed after Government Resolution dated 16.2.2006 by way of direct recruitment on contract basis, but prior to 4.6.2009, thus, eluding the requirement of passing the CCC Examination during contractual period. iv. It would also be required to be mentioned here that there also could not have been a retrospective applicability of the said Rule 9A more particularly as noted herein above, majority of the petitioners, except few, had been appointed between 16.2.2006 to 4.6.2009. iv. It would also be required to be mentioned here that there also could not have been a retrospective applicability of the said Rule 9A more particularly as noted herein above, majority of the petitioners, except few, had been appointed between 16.2.2006 to 4.6.2009. While Rule 9A(3) inter alia requires the employee appointed by direct recruitment on contractual basis to pass the CCC Examination during contractual period, yet on account of the fact that the petitioners had been appointed before 4.6.2009 there was no special provision carved out for such petitioners, whereby the period for passing of the CCC Examination when such employees were engaged on contractual basis was not extended as commensurate to the period which had already lapsed i.e. the period between the order of appointment of such employees till the date of Sub-rule 9A had been introduced. To elaborate it is observed that if an employee appointed in the year 2007 the period of such employee to pass Examination during contractual period after 4.6.2009 would be around three years, whereas a candidate appointed after 4.6.2009 would get complete five years to clear the CCC Examination. Thus, in absence of any special provision made for employees, who had been appointed prior to 4.6.2009, permitting such retrospective applicability would result in gross prejudice to such employees, who had been appointed prior to 4.6.2009. Therefore also such retrospective applicability not being envisaged in the Rules itself ought not to be permitted to be urged by the Government. v. It would also be required to be mentioned that the appointment order for the petitioners inter alia mentions that the candidates would be required to pass CCC Examination as per Government Resolution dated 30th September, 2006. As noted herein above, vide Government Resolution dated 30.9.2006, the State Government had notified Gujarat Civil Services Computer Competency Training and Examination Rules, 2006 and whereas Rule 9 thereof inter alia required passing of CCC Examination during probation. Since the petitioners were never required to undergo any probation period, therefore, the petitioners could not have complied with the requirements of the said Rules or the requirement as mentioned in the appointment order. Since the petitioners were never required to undergo any probation period, therefore, the petitioners could not have complied with the requirements of the said Rules or the requirement as mentioned in the appointment order. It would also be relevant to mention here that except some of the petitioners being required in the year 2018 to pass the CCC Examination for getting order of promotion, at no point of time, the petitioners were informed by the respective Authorities that passing of CCC Examination during the contractual period would be mandatory. 24. Insofar as Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015, since the said G.R. was in the nature of granting extension for a further period of two years over and above the period provided in Rule 9A of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules inserted vide Notification dated 4.6.2009 and since this Court has held that Rule 9A did not envisage the retrospective applicability and further this Court having observed that the petitioners having been appointed prior to 4.6.2009, therefore, it appears that later Resolution also would not, in any manner, impose any requirement upon the petitioner to pass the CCC Examination during the period stipulated therein. 25. It would also be relevant to mention that the petitioners after they had completed contractual period of five years of fixed pay-scale had been appointed on regular basis and even at that time, none of the petitioners appear to have been told that they were required to pass the CCC Examination for a second time. It also appears that the petitioners did not face any adverse consequence on account of not complying with Rule 9A of Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules till such time when the cases of the petitioners were taken up for consideration for being promoted. 26. Insofar as the submission of learned AGP that the onus is on the petitioners to have complied with the policy of the State Government, in the considered opinion of this Court, as such, the position prevailing prior to 4.6.2009, as elaborately discussed herein above did not envisage that the persons like the petitioners appointed prior to 4.6.2009 i.e. employees selected through direct recruitment and appointed on contractual basis were required to pass CCC Examination after entry in service. It cannot be gainsaid that the requirement prior to 4.6.2009 was only for employees on probation. It cannot be gainsaid that the requirement prior to 4.6.2009 was only for employees on probation. On the other hand, Rule 9A of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 inserted vide G. R. dated 4.6.2009 did not envisage any retrospective applicability. Furthermore, as noted herein above Rule 9A of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 envisaged a substantive change in the policy and whereas since the Rule did not make any specific provision for persons who had already been appointed prior to 4.6.2009, it was incumbent upon the respondent Authorities to have informed such employees like the petitioners appointed prior to 4.6.2009 to have appeared and passed the CCC Examination within a stipulated period of time. At this stage, it would also be relevant to observe that while most of the petitioners had been appointed prior to 4.6.2009, all of them got appointed in regular pay-scale in the years 2012 to 2014. It does not appear that at the stage of confirmation and appointment in regular payscale the respondents had raised any objection with regard to the petitioners not passing the CCC Examination as per the requirement of Rule 9A(iii) of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules. Thus, it appears that at the relevant point of time, even the respondent Authorities were of the opinion that the petitioners were not required to pass CCC Examination for a second time during contractual period and whereas it clearly appears that such a bogey had been raised only at the time of considering the case of the petitioners for promotion. Thus, when at the relevant point of time, even the respondent Authorities had at the stage of confirmation deemed ti appropriate not to take any adverse action against the petitioners for not having passed the CCC Examination for a second time as required under the Rules, then at this stage, the respondent Authorities cannot be permitted to place the onus on the employees of complying with the Rules, which otherwise were not applicable to the employees. 27. 27. At this stage, while the general proposition being that every Government employee is required to be and deemed to be aware about the policies of the State Government, but at the same time in scenarios like the present one, where there is substantive change in the policy and since the substantive policy did not make any provision for a certain class of persons, who did not fall within the ambit of the policy, then before taking any adverse action against such employees, it would be incumbent upon the Government to adhere to the principles of natural justice and provide adequate notice to such employees before taking any adverse action. In any case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners clearly not falling within the ambit of Rule 9A of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, the petitioners could not be required to comply with the same. 28. Furthermore, insofar as the contention by the learned AGP that the petitioners, almost all of them, having appeared in the CCC Examination after entering service, it should be deemed that the petitioners being aware about the requirement of the Rules and having passed the CCC Examination, the petitioners should be treated as having acquiesced and given up the right to question the applicability of the Rules, more particularly the retrospective applicability of the Rules being impliedly accepted by the petitioners. In this regard, it would be relevant to observe that requirement for passing of CCC Examination after entering service during contractual period had been introduced by insertion of Rule 9A in the Government Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967. The said Rule envisages passing of CCC Examination during the contractual period and whereas vide amendment by way of Resolution dated 23.10.2015 the period was extended by two years. It would be relevant to observe that the petitioners were not informed at any point of time during the period of their contractual appointment of the requirement to pass CCC Examination during contractual period. It also does not appear that the petitioners had faced any difficulty for confirmation in service or for being granted regular pay-scale prescribed for the post in question. It also does not appear that the petitioners had faced any difficulty for confirmation in service or for being granted regular pay-scale prescribed for the post in question. Thus, neither it was required of the petitioners to pass the CCC Examination during stipulated period as mentioned in the Rules, nor the petitioners faced any adverse consequence on account of non-passing of the CCC Examination during stipulated period. It also does not appear that the petitioners had passed the CCC Examination for a second time on account of any requirement as imposed by the respondent as a pre- condition for grant of regular pay-scale. It also appears that most of the petitioners had passed the CCC Examination for a second time in the years from 2016 to 2019. It also appears that such passing of the Examination was with a view to remove any possible obstacle at the time of candidature being considered for promotion. Again what would be important to reiterate here is the fact that the question is not about whether the petitioners have passed CCC Examination a second time or not, rather the fact that did the petitioners pass the Examination during the stipulated time. In view of what has been observed herein above, more particularly since this Court has clearly held that persons like petitioners were not required as per the extant Rules to pass CCC Examination after entering service, any passing of the Examination at a later stage by the petitioners could not be treated as an act on part of the petitioners whereby they have acquiesced to the requirement of passing the CCC Examination after entry in service. Having regard to the same, submission of the learned AGP of acquiescence cannot be countenanced. 29. It also requires to be noted here that all the petitioners, except the petitioners of SCA No.7585 of 2020, more particularly in absence of relevant details being provided by such petitioners have passed the CCC Examination twice i.e. the first time either before entry in service or in some cases, during the contractual period and in the second instance, on various dates after confirmation in service, more particularly in the year 2019 i.e. after the petitioners were required to appear in the CCC Examination in the year 2018. Thus, the fact of the petitioners having cleared the examination twice is undeniable, the only disputed aspect being that whether the petitioners were required to pass the examination during the period in contractual service or even two years thereafter. 30. From the above discussion and analysis, in the considered opinion of this Court the petitioners, except two petitioners referred to herein above and petitioners of SCA 7585 of 2020 consists of a separate class inasmuch as the petitioners having been appointed by direct recruitment as Forest Guards/Beat Guards on contractual basis, before 4.6.2009 i.e. when Rule 9A had been inserted in Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, therefore, in case of such employees the only requirement that was applicable with regard to passing of CCC Examination was requirement of passing the Examination as a pre-requisite for entry in service. Furthermore, since Rule 9A of Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules did not envisage retrospective applicability and since there does not appear to be any special provision/regulation/resolution envisaged for the employees appointed between 16.2.2006 and 4.6.2009, therefore, as on date, the requirement of passing of the CCC Examination during the period of contractual appointment or even two years thereafter could not be made applicable to the petitioners. 31. At this stage, insofar as SCA No.7585 of 2020 is concerned, it requires to be mentioned that the said petition challenges the validity of an order passed by CCF, Junagadh Circle, Junagadh dated 11.6.2020, whereby the said Officer had inter alia observed that representations had been received insofar as the applicability of G. R. dated 23.10.2015 and whereas there was a category of employees, who had been appointed after passing CCC Examination and they were never informed of the requirement of passing the CCC Examination during the contractual period of even as per Resolution dated 23.10.2015 i.e. for a further period of two years after the contractual period and since such employees also have passed the CCC Examination at a later stage in spite of not being informed, in such case, the seniority of such candidates needs to be protected. In the considered opinion of this Court, since this Court has already observed in favour of such persons referred to in the order dated 11.6.2020 and whereas this Court is laying down guidelines with regard to consideration of seniority of such persons, who have been referred to in the order dated 11.6.2020, therefore, this Court holds that no case for interference, in any manner whatsoever, is required in SCA No.7585 of 2020. 32. In view of the discussion, analysis and reasoning herein above, this Court arrives at the following conclusions :- A. That the petitioners appointed after 16.2.2006 and before 4.6.2009 were only required to pass the CCC Examination as a pre-requisite for entry in service; B. That the petitioners of the category referred to herein above were not required to pass the CCC Examination during the contractual period or even during the extended period of two years after the contractual period/regularization, and no adverse consequences could have been imposed upon the petitioners of the said category for not complying with Rule 9A of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules; C. That the petitioners, who have been appointed between 16.2.2006 and 4.6.2009 having fulfilled the requirement of passing the CCC Examination as applicable to them, they shall not be denied seniority and other benefits as applicable for non-fulfillment of Rule 9A of Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, further modified vide G. R. dated 23.10.2015. It is further clarified that the petitioners of the above category shall be treated as having cleared the CCC Examination as per the requirement of the Rules and shall be given all applicable benefits of seniority, etc., considering them as having passed the CCC Examination within the stipulated time; D. While this Court has evaluated individual cases and has found that all petitioners of the category appointed after 16.2.2006 and before 4.6.2009 have passed the CCC Examination for a second time, yet in case the respondents find any petitioner, who has not passed the CCC Examination after confirmation in service/appointed on regular basis, then it would be upon for the respondents to, as a policy decision, require such petitioner to pass the CCC Examination within a reasonable time period, i.e. within three years from the date of promulgating such policy; E.Insofar as the petitioner No.7 of SCA No.5076 of 2021, the said petitioner while he had been appointed on 12.8.2009, it appears that the said petitioner had passed the CCC Examination on 19.1.2009 i.e. prior to 4.6.2009 and furthermore, it also appears that the said petitioner had cleared the Examination once again on 21.11.2017. It also appears that the said petitioner had never been informed about the requirement of passing the Examination within any stipulated time for the second time. Hence, the said petitioner also should be treated in the category as above; F. Insofar as the petitioners of SCA No.12543 of 2020, while the petitioners had been appointed on 29.7.2009, it appears that the said petitioner had cleared CCC Examination on 13.6.2009 i.e. after their appointment during the contractual period and hence, the said petitioners had clearly fulfilled the requirement of Rule 9A of Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, inserted vide Notification dated 4.6.2009. 33. In view of the conclusions arrived at by this Court as herein above, the following directions are passed:- A. Such petitioners who have been appointed after 16.2.2006 and before 4.6.2009 are not requirement to pass CCC Examination as per Rule 9A(3) of Government Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967 during contractual period or extended period. 33. In view of the conclusions arrived at by this Court as herein above, the following directions are passed:- A. Such petitioners who have been appointed after 16.2.2006 and before 4.6.2009 are not requirement to pass CCC Examination as per Rule 9A(3) of Government Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967 during contractual period or extended period. All such petitioners shall be entitled to all benefits of seniority, promotion, etc., and whereas no adverse consequence whatsoever shall be imposed upon such petitioners on the ground that they have not complied with Rule 9A(3) of Government Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967. B. As discussed above, in view of the peculiar facts of petitioner No.7 of Special Civil Application No.5076 of 2021 i.e. Kamejaliya Dalsukhbhai Dhirubhai, the above direction shall also be applicable in case the said petitioner. C. It would be open for the State to frame a policy for requiring candidates appointed between 16.2.2006 to 4.6.2009 to clear CCC Examination for a second time within a reasonable period i.e. within three years from the date of policy and whereas such requirement shall be informed to individual candidate in the respondent Department. D. Insofar as petitioner of Special Civil Application No.12543 of 2020, the said petitioner fulfills the requirement of Rule 9A of Government Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967 and, therefore, he shall be entitled to all such benefits as available on account of such compliance. 34. The respondent Authorities are directed to make consequential changes in the seniority position of the petitioners, except petitioners of Special Civil Application No.7585 of 2020 as per the conclusion and direction herein above and whereas any and all orders of the respondent Authorities, whereby adverse consequences were to be imposed upon the petitioners for non-passing of the CCC Examination within the stipulated period of time after entry in service are declared as being arbitrary and illegal and are to be treated as quashed and set aside. Appropriate consequential effects shall be given by the respondent Authorities within a period of eight weeks from today. 35. Ordered accordingly. All the petitions, except SCA No.7585 of 2020, stand allowed. Rule is made absolute in those petitions to the aforesaid extent. 36. In view of the order passed in the main matters, Civil Applications in the allowed main matters do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. 37. 35. Ordered accordingly. All the petitions, except SCA No.7585 of 2020, stand allowed. Rule is made absolute in those petitions to the aforesaid extent. 36. In view of the order passed in the main matters, Civil Applications in the allowed main matters do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. 37. Special Civil Application No.7585 of 2020 is disposed of as rejected. Rule is discharged. 38. Since the main matter being SCA No.7585 of 2020 is rejected, Civil Application No.1 of 2020 for joining party in Special Civil Application No.7585 of 2020 is not required to be granted. Hence, the said Civil Application stands disposed of as rejected with liberty to the applicants to file a substantive petition for redressal of their grievance, if any.