( 1 ) AS these two petitions arise out of identical facts and involve common questions, they are being decided by this common order. The arguments were heard in part on 17-2-1995. Thereafter the case was taken up on different dales, but till date no reply to these writ petitions is filed. Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has stated that there are number of other identical petitions which have already been decided by this Court on 17-6-1995, and the main petition was special Civil Application No. 2929/94 in which a detailed reply has been filed on behalf of the Board, and as such to avoid unnecessary repetition of the reply he prays that that reply be treated as reply to these petitions. I called for the file of special Civil Application No. 9299/94, and have gone through the contents of the said writ petition as well as the order passed in that writ petition, and cognate matters. I am satisfied that these are identical matters. In view of these facts the prayer which has been made by Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the respondents, is accepted and the reply filed by him in Special Civil Application no. 9229/94 is treated as reply t