JUDGMENT : NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J. 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.B.S.Patel appearing with learned advocate Mr.Chirag Patel on behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Nirali Sarda appearing on behalf of the respondent –State. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioners challenge order dated 31.03.2014 rejecting the representation of the petitioner which representation had been preferred as per the decision of this Court as well as order dated 30.04.2013 based upon which the main impugned order dated 31.03.2014 had been passed. 3. The facts, leading to the present petition, indicative of a long and checkered history, and whereas, only such facts as are relevant for the purpose for deciding the present petition, would be referred to:- 3.1. It would appear that the petitioner – Trust was running an Ashramshala at Village: Jetpur, Taluka: Nandod, District: Narmada with the requisite permissions catering to the needs of around 120 students. It appears that functioning of the Ashramshala had run into difficulty and whereas, the Trust had constructed a building for running the Ashramshala at Village: Virpur which was located 1.5 kms from Jetpur and had moved an application for revival of the permission and whereas, upon the same being rejected, the petitioner had challenged the same before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.962/2005 and whereas, the said writ petition came to be allowed vide an order dated 13.07.2006. 3.2. It would appear that vide the said order, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and whereas, it would appear that again, the request of the petitioner had been rejected vide an order dated 18.04.2007, which came to be challenged before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.18539/2007 and whereas, the said petition had been allowed by a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide decision dated 05.12.2007 more particularly to the extent of remanding the matter back to the respondents for a fresh decision. 3.3. It would appear that ultimately, vide a resolution dated 23/24.06.2008, the Tribal Development Department had re- approved the Ashramshala of the petitioner subject to certain conditions. It would be pertinent to mention here that before passing of the Government Resolution dated 23/24.06.2008, the Ashramshala had been made functional by the petitioner and whereas, the same had been inspected by the respondents. It would be pertinent to mention here that before passing of the Government Resolution dated 23/24.06.2008, the Ashramshala had been made functional by the petitioner and whereas, the same had been inspected by the respondents. It would also appear that the petitioner had appointed two teaching staff and two non-teaching staff and whereas, a question arose as regards the salary to be paid to such staff appointed by the petitioners. 3.4. It appears that on a request made by the petitioners, the concerned authority had called upon the petitioners to inform the authority as regards the process which had been undertaken by the petitioners before appointing the teaching and non-teaching staff and whereas, it would clearly appear that the petitioner – institution had not undertaken any elaborate process for appointing the staff in question. It would appear thereafter that since the request of the petitioners for release of grant for salary of the staff in question had been rejected, the petitioners had approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.3733/2010. It would appear that a learned Coordinate Bench vide decision dated 27.09.2010, had rejected the writ petition preferred by the petitioners. 3.5. It would further appear that the petitioners had thereafter approached the Hon’ble Division Bench by preferring Letters Patent Appeal No.2824/2010 challenging order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench referred to hereinabove and vide decision dated 17.04.2012, the Hon’ble Division Bench relying upon an order dated 25.01.2011 passed by a learned Coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.14957/2010 and allied matters had directed the State Government to consider the case of the employees of the present petitioner for regularization through a committee which was to be constituted for the very same purpose, as per the direction in order dated 25.01.2011. 3.6. It would appear that pursuant to the said direction, since the respondents did not take any decision upon the request made by the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners had again preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.3082/2014 and whereas, a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2014 had recorded the statement of the learned AGP and had disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to take an appropriate decision on the representation by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order of learned Coordinate Bench. It would appear that the impugned order dated 31.03.2014 and order dated 30.04.2013 are passed pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench as well as the learned Coordinate Bench referred to hereinabove and whereas, being aggrieved by the said decisions, the present petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition. 4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.B.S.Patel appearing on behalf of the petitioner who would assail the decision of the respondents by contending that pursuant to the directions of this Court in Special Civil Application No.14957/2010 i.e. vide decision dated 25.01.2011, the State Government had considered the cases of 171 teaching and non-teaching staff of Ashramshalas for the purpose of regularization and whereas, initially while 92 employees had been regularized, later, 73 employees had been regularized. 4.1. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that while not much details are available about the 92 persons whose services have been regularized at the first instance, as far as the later lot is concerned, it would clearly appear that there were serious lacunas in the selection process as well as even in the qualification criteria of such employees, yet, the State had taken a decision in the nature of a one time settlement to regularize the services of the later lot of the employees. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that having regard to such a circumstance, nothing prevented the respondents from regularizing the case of the employees of the present petitioner more particularly there being no difference between the case of the employees of the present petitioner and the 73 employees whose cases have been regularized. 4.2. Learned Senior Advocate would also rely upon a decision whereby services of 9 of the first lot of 92 employees had also been regularized by the State Government vide an order dated 03.08.2013. The highlight of the order insofar as the case of the 9 employees being that in the order of regularization, the State had directed that regularization would be with effect from 5 years after the date of their original appointment. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the employees of the petitioner also would be agreeable if the cases of such employees are regularized on such a condition and whereas, learned Senior Advocate would request this Court to allow the present writ petition and pass appropriate directions. 5. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the employees of the petitioner also would be agreeable if the cases of such employees are regularized on such a condition and whereas, learned Senior Advocate would request this Court to allow the present writ petition and pass appropriate directions. 5. On the other hand, the present petition is vehemently objected to by learned AGP Ms.Sarda. Learned AGP would submit that while it is undoubtedly true that the State Government had regularized the services of a total 165 employees out of 171 cases which had been considered by the committee as per the direction of this Court dated 25.01.2011 and whereas, it is submitted more particularly relying upon an affidavit in reply filed by the State that regularization was in case of employees where the institutions concerned could show some semblance of a selection process having been undertaken. 5.1. Learned AGP would submit that the institutions, having undertaken some procedure before the employees were selected, the benefit of such policy may not be directed to enure in favour of the employees of the present petitioner institute. Learned AGP would submit that a detailed exercise had been undertaken by the respondents insofar as the 171 teaching and non-teaching staff of the Ashramshala were concerned as per the direction of the learned Coordinate Bench and whereas, such an exercise also appears to have been taken in case of the employees of the present petitioner and whereas, since appropriate grounds have been mentioned by the authorities while rejecting the request for regularization, therefore, it is submitted that this Court may not intervene and may not pass any orders in favour of the petitioners. 6. Heard learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and learned AGP for the respondent – State and perused the documents on record. The only question that arises for consideration of this Court is that the employees of the petitioner institution i.e. two teaching and two non-teaching staff would be entitled for being considered as regular employees at par with the 165 employees whose cases had been considered by the State Government. 6.1. Before undertaking the above exercise, at the first instance, this Court seeks to refer to decision of the learned Coordinate Bench dated 25.01.2011 in Special Civil Application No.14957/2010 more particularly basis which order, the State had undertaken the exercise of considering the case of the employees of the Ashramshala for regularization. 6.1. Before undertaking the above exercise, at the first instance, this Court seeks to refer to decision of the learned Coordinate Bench dated 25.01.2011 in Special Civil Application No.14957/2010 more particularly basis which order, the State had undertaken the exercise of considering the case of the employees of the Ashramshala for regularization. Paragraphs no.5(1) to (8) being relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:- “5. In light of the statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader as recorded hereinabove and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective petitioners, this Court does not propose to enter into the merits of the case, therefore, the following order is passed :- (1) Upon withdrawal of resolutions/orders dated 04.08.2010 and 16.09.2010 by the State Government, all consequential orders of termination of service of the petitioners passed by the management of different Ashramshalas across the State are quashed and set aside and the petitioners will continue in service and be paid salary for the intervening period, unless their services have been discontinued by the Ashramshalas for any other reason. (2) Any order regarding stoppage of salary of the teachers/petitioners passed by the respective Ashramshalas as a consequence of orders dated 04.08.2010 and 16.09.2010, and any other consequential orders passed by the State authorities, are hereby quashed and set aside. (3) Till such time as the State Government takes a final decision regarding grant/non-grant of approval to the appointments of teaching staff in different Ashramshalas, including the petitioners, the service conditions of the petitioners shall not be changed or altered in any manner, to their disadvantage. (4) The State Government shall release the necessary grant for payment of the salaries of Assistant Teachers working in Ashramshalas, including the petitioners, till such time as the final decision is taken. (5) The managements of different Ashramshalas shall co- operate with the State Government by providing necessary documents regarding all persons employed by them, when called upon to do so. (6) As these petitions have not been decided on merits, the rights and contentions available to the respective parties are kept open. (7) As the statement recorded hereinabove envisages reconsideration of the appointments of the teachers/petitioners in Ashramshalas across the State, it may not be considered as a promise held out by the State Government to any of them. (6) As these petitions have not been decided on merits, the rights and contentions available to the respective parties are kept open. (7) As the statement recorded hereinabove envisages reconsideration of the appointments of the teachers/petitioners in Ashramshalas across the State, it may not be considered as a promise held out by the State Government to any of them. (8) Upon a final decision being taken by the State Government, if any adverse order is passed against any of the petitioners, the concerned petitioner shall be given an intimation in writing by RPAD immediately, and the said order shall not be implemented for a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order.” 6.2. The above quoted portion reflecting the directions passed by the learned Coordinate Bench while allowing the petition in question more particularly directing the State Government to form a committee and to verify as to whether the employees of the Ashramshala both teaching and non- teaching staff would be entitled to be paid salaries from the grant received by the State Government. 7. Now coming back to the issue in question, it would appear that out of 171 employees, vide an order dated 05.06.2013, appointment of 92 employees had been approved. Not much is placed on record as regards the said employees and whereas, since it would appear that 92 employees were given precedence over the remaining employees, a reasonable presumption could be made as regards the said employees fulfilling the criteria for appointment and whereas, under such circumstances, their appointments have been approved. It would appear that the remaining 79 candidates had thereafter approached the State Government once again and the State Government had directed the Tribal Development Department to once again verify the cases of 79 candidates in question and whereas, it would appear in this regard that the cases of 79 candidates had been examined by the Tribal Development Department and whereas, a report had been forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Tribal Development Commissionerate, Tribal Development Department on 24.12.2023 to the State Government and whereas, perusal of the report makes an interesting reading. It would appear that the Commissioner of Tribal Development had undertaken a detailed exercise as regards the 79 candidates and whereas, the report revealed that while in some of the cases NOC had been issued and the same followed up with an advertisement and whereas, the candidates also had the requisite qualifications for being appointed, yet, it would clearly appear that in majority of the cases, the recruitment process was not in accordance with law and whereas, notwithstanding the same, in all the cases, the Commissionerate of Tribal Development has opined that the appointment of the employee is required to be approved. 7.1. At this stage, it would also be pertinent to mention here that the report, lists out the evidences given by the institution in support of claiming that the recruitment process whereby the employee had been appointed was a fair, transparent and legal process and whereas, perusing the documents would reveal, as noticed hereinabove, that some of the institutions had the NOC and other approvals, some of the institutions were completely at sea even as regards the documents which were to be produced. As such, some of the institutions had produced decision of the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 25.01.2011 in Special Civil Application No.14957/2010 and whereas, no other documents to show that any recruitment process had been undertaken, had been placed on record. 7.2. It would thus appear that the list of 73 candidates clearly reflects the opinion of the Commissionerate of the Tribal Development that most of the cases was not deserving of regularization and whereas, the report also reveals that there were number of lacunas insofar as the recruitment process to the extent of some of the candidates being declared overage or some of the candidates not holding the requisite qualifications on the date when they were appointed or in some cases, the NOC and the advertisement published after the date of the appointment of the candidate etc. 7.3. While the report is sought to be defended by the State more particularly relying upon an affidavit-in-reply filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Directorate of Tribal Development, yet, it would appear to this Court that no justifiable reason has been forthcoming as regards the decision of the State Authorities in rejecting the case of employees of the present petitioner for being absorbed / regularized in service. It would appear in this regard that while it is attempted to be stated that the report inter alia indicates that some material / documentary evidence had been produced by the institution to show that there was a semblance of a process undertaken before the appointment was given to the candidates in question, yet, as noticed hereinabove, a deeper perusal of the report clearly reveals that while there may have been a semblance in some cases, yet, in many of the cases, there was absolute absence of any recruitment process whatsoever. 7.4. It would further be relevant to observe here that while 92 employees of Ashramshalas had their services regularized in the first round i.e. vide orders dated 05.06.2013, vide order dated 28.02.2014 even the case of 73 candidates which had been referred to hereinabove was regularized as a one time settlement/measure. It would also be pertinent to mention here that while the stand of the State appears to be that 92 employees whose services had been regularized, had been appointed after a selection process, in the later case, i.e. of 73 persons, the procedure had been carried out not in all cases and as noticed, in some of the cases, even the candidates did not have the requisite qualifications. 7.5. Be that as it may, what would be more relevant is to note that insofar as the 9 out of the 92 employees of the first lot, the State Government had issued an order dated 03.08.2013 for approving the appointment given to the 9 candidates and whereas, the only difference one manages to discern from this order i.e. dated 03.08.2013 and other orders in this regard being that the said candidates were directed to be regularized in service after 5 years of their original appointment. As such, though there are no details forthcoming as regards the mode of appointment of the said candidates, the qualification criteria held by them etc., yet, it would appear to this Court that lack of material particulars as appearing in order dated 03.08.2013 may reflect upon the lack of qualification and the lack of interview and whereas, it is under such circumstances, that greater details as regards the said 9 candidates does not appear to be forthcoming in the communication dated 03.08.2013. 7.6. 7.6. It would thus appear to this Court that while a learned Coordinate Bench had directed the State Authorities to consider the cases of persons like the petitioner, for being absorbed in service as teaching/non-teaching staff in Ashramshalas in the State of Gujarat and whereas, the State had considered the cases of in total 171 applicants, excluding the employees of the present petitioner and whereas, over a period of time, out of the 171 employees 165 had been absorbed in service and whereas, the petitioners have been refused on some tangential grounds. It would appear in this regard that while the original impugned order i.e. impugned order dated 31.03.2014 refers to a decision taken in a meeting by the committee as envisaged by this Court on 30.04.2013 and whereas, the opinion given was that if the employees of the petitioner institution were still in service, then it would be absolutely at the cost and consequence of the Ashramshala in question. It was further directed that the Ashramshala could undertaken a fresh exercise for appointing candidates and whereas, in case the provisions provide for age relaxation, then the existing candidates could be permitted to participate and appropriate action was requited to be taken after the selection process. 7.7. To this Court, it would appear that the State had acted arbitrarily and had discriminated between two similarly situated employees while not considering the case of employees of the petitioner for being appointed in service on regular basis as against which 165 of the 171 cases including persons similarly situated to the petitioner had been regularized. 7.8. To this Court, it would appear that the entire confusion has arisen most probably on account of the fact that the State Authorities did not comply with direction of Hon’ble Division Bench dated 17.04.2012 in its true letter and spirit. Vide order of the said date, as noticed hereinabove, the Hon’ble Division Bench was of the opinion that since a committee constituted by the State Government was looking into whether the employees of both teaching and non-teaching staff could be regularized in the Ashramshala and whereas, the case of the petitioners was directed to be considered by the said committee. Vide order of the said date, as noticed hereinabove, the Hon’ble Division Bench was of the opinion that since a committee constituted by the State Government was looking into whether the employees of both teaching and non-teaching staff could be regularized in the Ashramshala and whereas, the case of the petitioners was directed to be considered by the said committee. It would appear that the petitioners had immediately thereupon i.e. vide their representation dated 09.05.2012 requested that their employees may be regularized, yet, the case of the 4 employees of the petitioner had not been consider by the committee when they were considering the cases of such similarly situated candidates. To this Court, it would appear that had the representation preferred by the petitioners dated 09.05.2012 been considered by the committee along with 171 cases, probably the present situation may not have arisen since the petitioners were identically situated to some of the employees whose case was not considered by the State Government for regularization when the first order in question of regularizing the service of 92 candidates had been passed. 7.9. To this Court, it would appear that there is no reason whatsoever as available with the State Government not to consider the case of the employees of the present petitioner as the case of other employees of Ashramshalas similarly situated to the petitioner had been considered i.e. vide orders dated 03.08.2013 and 28.02.2014. To this Court, it would appear that when the State, more particularly vide order dated 28.02.2014 was regularizing the services of the 73 similarly situated persons, the State was well aware that some of the candidates did not possess the requisite qualifications or that the necessary selection process had not been undertaken or that the candidates were overaged etc. since the same clearly appears on the basis of the detailed report which is part of an affidavit-in-reply filed by the then Deputy Commissioner, Directorate of Tribal Development, Gandhinagar. 7.10. It is in this context that the State while passing an order of regularizing the services of the candidates had observed that the regularization was to be treated as a one time settlement/measure and whereas, it was clearly mentioned that the said order shall not be relied upon as a precedent. 7.10. It is in this context that the State while passing an order of regularizing the services of the candidates had observed that the regularization was to be treated as a one time settlement/measure and whereas, it was clearly mentioned that the said order shall not be relied upon as a precedent. While, the State may have stated so, to this Court, it would appear that such an observation would preclude other departments to regularize the cases of their employees who were not recruited through the regular mode more particularly since the department which passed the original order had laid down that the order was passed in special circumstances and was not to be treated as a precedent. Having said that, to this Court, it would appear that such an embargo would not have any effect whatsoever upon the jurisdiction which this Court could exercise and whereas, since this Court has come to a conclusion that the petitioners are similarly situated to many of the employees whose case had been considered in the report of 73 persons, therefore, atleast when the services of the 73 employees had been regularized then there is no reason whatsoever for not having regularized the services of the employees of the present petitioner. 7.11. Furthermore, it would be also apposite to state that the Government having originally regularized the services of the 92 employees, before passing of the order dated 28.02.2014, had passed an order dated 03.08.2013, whereby the services of 9 candidates of the first lot of 92 candidates was also directed to be regularized albeit subject to the condition that they would be entitled for regular pay upon completion of 5 years of service from the date of their original appointment. To this Court, it would appear that the State is not legally empowered to differentiate and discriminate between two sets of persons who are identically situated. The petitioner having fairly stated that there was no semblance of a process undertaken before appointing the proposed employees, yet, one could not be oblivious of the fact that in the report, which had led to order dated 28.02.2014 being passed, clearly reflects the ineligibility of many of the employees mentioned in the said report. The petitioner having fairly stated that there was no semblance of a process undertaken before appointing the proposed employees, yet, one could not be oblivious of the fact that in the report, which had led to order dated 28.02.2014 being passed, clearly reflects the ineligibility of many of the employees mentioned in the said report. To this Court, it would appear that the State having differentiated the employees who are similarly situated, while the present would be a clear case of discrimination requiring appropriate interference from this Court. 7.12. Furthermore, to this Court, it would appear that the impugned orders i.e. order dated 31.03.2014 as well as order dated 30.04.2013 are also required to be interfered with more particularly on the ground that the orders are arbitrary and would not reflect appropriate application of mind by the concerned authorities. The above conclusion being arrived at on the basis that though the said orders had been passed by the State when the process of regularizing the 171 employees referred to hereinabove was in progress, yet, instead of taking a stand similar to the stand taken in case of all the employees, more particularly the later employees, 73 in number, a completely new proposition has been attempted to be developed whereby it is directed that the petitioner institution should undertake a selection process afresh after obtaining appropriate approval and NOCs and whereas, at the time of recruitment, if the extant policy permits the relaxation of age, then the employees working with the petitioner institution would be entitled to such relaxation. 7.13. This Court having perused the report as well as the communications with regard to the State having dealt with the cases of 171 employees referred to hereinabove, nowhere does this Court find that the respondents have taken such a stand. The stand taken by the respondents in case of the present petitioners, reflective of the clear arbitrariness since a different stand had been taken by the very Directorate of Tribal Welfare in case of the petitioner completely contrary to the stand taken by the respondents in their communications dated 28.02.2014 etc. The stand taken by the respondents in case of the present petitioners, reflective of the clear arbitrariness since a different stand had been taken by the very Directorate of Tribal Welfare in case of the petitioner completely contrary to the stand taken by the respondents in their communications dated 28.02.2014 etc. and whereas, perusing the impugned order dated 31.03.2014 as well as the order dated 30.04.2013 where the decision of rejecting the representation had been taken, it would appear that there is no reason whatsoever as found in either of the orders as regards the State taking a different stand in case of employees who were identically situated more particularly without any rational whatsoever. 7.14. Having regard to the above discussion, to this Court, the issue framed for consideration as to whether the employees working with the petitioner i.e. two teaching and two non-teaching staff were entitled to have their services regularized as done by the State in cases of 165 of the 171 employees, is answered in the affirmative. 8. Basis the above discussion, observation and conclusions, to this Court, the following directions would meet with the ends of justice:- (i) Impugned orders dated 30.04.2013 and 31.03.2014 are quashed and set aside. (ii) The respondents are directed to approve the appointment issued by the petitioner Institution to four of its employees, their names as appearing in representation dated 09.05.2012, on the same terms as similarly situated employees have been regularized vide order dated 03.08.2013 i.e. w.e.f completion of 5 years from the date of their original appointment. (iii) The employees of the petitioner shall be entitled to seek for all benefits that have been made available to 165 out of the 171 employees, whose cases were considered for approval as referred to hereinabove. (iv) The petitioner Institution / employees would be entitled to grant of all benefits as granted to the Institutions in which 165 of the 171 employees referred to hereinabove or the 165 of the 171 employees concerned were granted. Appropriate exercise to be undertaken and finalized within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 9. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of as allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.