JUDGMENT : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent - State. 2. Heard Mr. D. G. Shukla, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. 3. The present petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- "10.(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent Authorities to consider the Applications of Petitioners for the post of Vidhya Sahayaks for S.E.B.C. category candidates for Udiya Medium Schools in pursuance to the impugned Advertisement dated 13.06.2018 in the interest of justice; (B) Your Lordships may be further pleased to quash and set aside action of the Respondent Authorities by issuing the impugned Advertisement dated 13.06.2018 whereby, the candidature of candidates who belong to Open Merit - Un-reserved (General) category will be considered on the vacancies of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and SEBC category candidates by way of conversion for the post of Vidhya Sahayaks in the interest of justice; (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to grant the interim relief staying the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned Advertisement dated 13.06.2018 issued by Respondent No. 2 herein to the extent it will consider Un-reserved (General) category candidates for the posts reserved for S.E.B.C. category candidates." 4. It was the case of the petitioners that the they belong to a community which is recognized as a backward class/SEBC under the Government of India, Ministry of Welfare and that they had passed their Bachelor’s and Master’s Degree and applied for the post of Teacher for Upper Primary - Std. 6 to 8 pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.06.2018. 4.1 It was further the case of the petitioners that they had made an application on 27.06.2018 pursuant to advertisement dated 13.06.2018. The advertisement was for inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Vidhya Sahayaks and for Std. 6 to 8 there were 484 posts (Maths - Science : 341 posts, Languages : 63 posts and Social Science : 80 posts). The said posts were to be filled in for English, Hindi, Marathi, Urdu, Udiya and Tamil Medium Schools. The advertisement was for inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Vidhya Sahayaks and for Std. 6 to 8 there were 484 posts (Maths - Science : 341 posts, Languages : 63 posts and Social Science : 80 posts). The said posts were to be filled in for English, Hindi, Marathi, Urdu, Udiya and Tamil Medium Schools. It was the case of the petitioners that they were possessing the required educational qualifications for the posts for which they have applied for and they were eligible candidates for the post of Vidya Sahayaks for Udiya Medium Schools as required in the impugned advertisement. 4.2 It was the case of the petitioners that the advertisement was published on 13.06.2018. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had submitted online applications for the post of Vidya Sahayaks for Udiya Medium Schools. It was the case of the petitioners that respondent authorities have started the document verification on 20.07.2018 and the final merit list was likely to be published and that they were required to be considered for the same posts. 5. Mr. D. G. Shukla, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that there are about 45 vacant posts for Udiya Medium Schools belonging to Scheduled Cast, Scheduled Tribe and SEBC category candidates. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have made online applications and till today their applications are not considered. The petitioners had made many representations to the District Collector, Surat and other relevant authorities giving the examples that there were many Udiya Medium Primary Schools wherein many children of poor labourers are studying and there was many sanctioned strength for Teachers in such Udiya Medium Schools and therefore, the case of the petitioners was required to be considered. Further, as the petitioners possessing the requisite education qualification, they should be considered for the post of Vidya Sahayaks pursuant to the impugned advertisement dated 13.06.2018. 6. Per contra, Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader has relied on the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply and submitted that as far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they have made online applications. However, petitioner No.3 has not made any application and therefore, he would not have any locus to challenge the consequence or otherwise. 6. Per contra, Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader has relied on the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply and submitted that as far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they have made online applications. However, petitioner No.3 has not made any application and therefore, he would not have any locus to challenge the consequence or otherwise. It was further submitted that even the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have preferred only online applications and they have not submitted the applications as per the procedure prescribed by the rules or as provided in the advertisement. In such context, the petitioners do not have any locus to seek the prayers as prayed in the writ petition. She further submitted that the petitioners who have made online applications have neither deposited their forms along with supporting documents as prescribed at the receiving centres nor paid the prescribed fee and therefore the petitioners would not have any locus with regard to the prayers made. In view of the such submissions, she requested for rejection of the writ petition. 7. To decide the controversy in question, it should be noted that the recruitment of Vidya Sahayaks including that of Udiya Medium were notified vide public advertisement dated 13.06.2018. The petitioner No.3 has not made any application and such fact is not controverted by Mr. D. G. Shukla, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, merely because many posts for Vidya Sahayaks in Udiya Medium were available cannot be a ground for considering the case of petitioner No.3. Petitioner No.3 not being an applicant in the said advertisement cannot ask for any relief in consequence of such advertisement, and therefore, his case is summarily rejected. As far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, it is an admitted fact that they had made online applications. A specific query was put by Mr. D. G. Shukla, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners as to whether the petitioners had submitted the application form as required more particularly by condition No.8 of the advertisement. Mr. Shukla, learned advocate was not in a position to put-forward the case that they had physically deposited the application form. A specific query was put by Mr. D. G. Shukla, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners as to whether the petitioners had submitted the application form as required more particularly by condition No.8 of the advertisement. Mr. Shukla, learned advocate was not in a position to put-forward the case that they had physically deposited the application form. Condition No.8 of the advertisement specifically stipulated that the print out of the application form should be taken and along with the prescribed fees such application form had to be deposited at the receiving centre between 18.06.2018 to 20.06.2018. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 having not submitted such applications form and having not paid the prescribed fees were in total breach of condition No.8 of the application. Condition No.8 also provided that if the applications were not submitted as prescribed then the case of the candidate would not be considered. Therefore, according to condition No.8, the case of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were not considered. 8. The other point for observation is that recruitment of Vidya Sahayaks in Primary Section of Government/Panchayat/Municipal schools is governed by Municipal Primary Education Committee (Procedural Selection) Rules, 2017. As per Rule 4(2) and 4(6), the candidate is required to make an online application and deposit such application along with prescribed fees for scrutiny at centres specified in the advertisement. If it was not done then the candidate shall be liable to face consequential as prescribed Rule 4(7). For ready reference, Rule 4(2), 4(6) and 4(7) are reproduced hereinbelow: "4. (2) The State level Selection Committee shall invite online applications in the prescribed form from the candidates by issuing an advertisement in widely circulated newspapers in the State stating the vacancies as per the requisitions received from the District Education Committees and Municipal School Boards (Nagar Shikshan Committees). The State level Selection Committee shall mention in the advertisement the requirement of copies of mark-sheets and other certificates along with the application form. The candidate shall deposit the prescribed application form at the offices or receiving centres as may be specified in the advertisement or in the application form fixed by the respective District Education Committee and/or Municipal School Board (Nagar Shikshan District Committee). The Primary Education Officer/Administrative Officer shall scrutinise the application forms and the original certificates at the time of accepting the application form. The Primary Education Officer/Administrative Officer shall scrutinise the application forms and the original certificates at the time of accepting the application form. (6) The candidate shall take print out of the "online" application and shall deposit at the offices or receiving centres along with the prescribed fee. (7) No application shall be accepted without depositing prescribed fee and print out of the 'online' application. No submission in this regard shall be entertained afterwards.” 9. Therefore, when the petitioners have failed to deposit the print out of the forms at the centres along with the prescribed fees then their candidature as per the advertisement was not required to be considered. There being specific rules prescribing the procedure to be followed by the candidates and there being categorical factual observations that petitioners had not fulfilled the criteria as per rules and as well as per condition of advertisement, the prayer as enunciated in the writ petition by the petitioners is not required to be accepted. It is also candidly accepted by Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioners that the advertisement is for the year 2018 and he is not in a position to show as to what was happened in furtherance of the advertisement and the reasons to consider the case of the petitioners at this belated stage. Therefore, this Court do not see any reason to look into the prayers as prayed by the writ petitioners by entertaining the present petition. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.