1. The present petition voicing grievances of five female 'Bal Gurus', whose appointment orders were cancelled way back on 13.11.1997, has come up for consideration and final disposal after remaining in a limbo for ten years from 1999 to 2010. In substance, the grievance of the petitioners is that even after issuance of appointment orders on 5.11.1997 to the posts of 'Bal Gurus' those appointments were cancelled by order dated 13.11.1997 before the petitioners could take charge of their office on the appointed date of 17.11.1997. Admittedly, the petitioners had, therefore, approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.8282 of 1997 and pursuant to the order made therein their cases were considered but they were not appointed on account of absence of vacancies and the petitioners not meeting the norms for selection as 'Vidhya Sahayaks' under the new scheme prevailing at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioners have called into question those orders dated 2.2.1999 by amending the petition and averred that out of 181 posts of 'Bal Gurus' in Mangrol Taluka only 13 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste, 25 posts for Scheduled Tribe and 49 posts for Baxi Panch candidates. As against that the respondents had issued appointment orders to 97 candidates of Scheduled Tribe, 23 candidates of Baxi Panch and 8 candidates of Scheduled Caste category. Thus, only 19 candidates of general category were appointed. Even after such appointments of 149 candidates only 123 had joined the duties, and therefore, 55 posts had remained vacant. Therefore, the respondents were required to be directed to place before this Court the complete select list of 'Bal Gurus' prepared pursuant to the interviews held on 25.6.1997 and the list of candidates who were actually appointed and who joined duties so as to arrive at a clear finding about the manner in which the petitioners were excluded from recruitment, according to the averment. On that basis learned counsel, Mr.K.B.Pujara, appearing for the petitioners submitted that those data having not been placed before the Court, it was apparent that the respondents had illegally and arbitrarily deprived the petitioners of their chance to be appointed on the posts of 'Vidhya Sahayaks', even after interim orders made herein.
2. Learned counsel, Mr.Munshaw, appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned AGP for the State submitted, on the basis of affidavit inreply of the Joint Secretary in the Education Department of the State Government, that pursuant to earlier orders of this Court in petitions, viz. Special Civil Application Nos.8282 of 1997, 8711 of 1997 and 7959 of 1997 directing to include the candidates of reserved category into general category, the authorities were required to appoint a Committee and carry out the selection process according to the orders.
3. Having regard to the orders now under challenge, i.e. orders dated 2.2.1999 and the scheme for selection and appointment of 'Vidhya Sahayaks', as contained in Government Resolution dated 11.6.1998, the cases of the petitioners appear to have been duly considered and, in any case, their previous selection as 'Bal Gurus' did not vest the petitioners with any right to appointment. Though it is true that adequate reply to the grievances of the petitioners against the impugned orders dated 2.2.1999 has not been filed by any of the respondents, it was submitted by learned counsel Mr.Munshaw that the work of selection of 'Vidhya Sahayaks' was at the relevant time entrusted to an independent Committee and opinion of that Committee that there were no vacancies available for appointment of the petitioners and that they were not fulfilling minimum required qualification had to be accepted by the respondent.
4. In these facts, even as the petitioners were already aged 26/27 at the time of filing of the petition in the year 1998, even an order to consider their case for any fresh recruitment could not be issued. Therefore, the petitioners are held to be not entitled to any equitable relief in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed and Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated with no order as to costs.
*malek (D.H.Waghela, J.)