( 1 ) ALL these petitions are identical and as such the same are disposed of by this common order. In fact, earlier the petitioners filed a joint petition, being Special Civil Application No. 5718 of 1992 and as ordered by this Court, the other petitioners in the aforesaid Special Civil Application filed one or two pages petition. The arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with reference to Special Civil Application No. 5718 of 1992.

( 2 ) THE facts of this case, in brief are that the petitioners applied for the post of Gram Sevak (Multi Purpose) pursuant to the advertisement No. 38 to 44 of the year 1985. It is not in dispute that for Gandhinagar District, five posts were vacant for unreserved category for the cadre of Gram Sevak (Multi Purpose ). The dispute in all these petitions relate to appointment of the aforesaid five posts of Gram Sevak (Multi Purpose) for Gandhinagar District. The petitioners were selected and their names have been placed in the merit list which was of seventeen candidates. The names of the petitioners were placed in the aforesaid select list at Sr. No. 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16. In the year 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-89, there was a ban put by the State Government due to prevailing situation of drought and no recruitment or appointment in the Government was given and therefore the petitioners, as per their case, were not appointed though selected on the post of Gram Sevak (Multi Purpose ). The recruitment rules were amended by Resolution dated 5. 5. 88 and it is case of the petitioners that in view of subsequence clarification issued on 22. 12. 88, no appointment was required to be given to the candidates who were selected pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1984-85 and who were put in the select list because of amended recruitment rules by Government Resolution dated 5. 5. 88. Making reference to the Resolution dated 29th May 1982 of the Department of Panchayat and Rural Housing Development, Government of Gujarat, it is averred that for non-gazetted cadres, the select/waiting list prepared by the District Panchayat Selection Committee on the basis of result of the competitive test would remain operative until the result of the next text held by selection committee was declared. So as per the case of the petitioners, the select list was to remain in operation till preparation of the next select list and till date no list is prepared after holding competitive test by the authority and therefore the petitioners claim their appointment on the post of Gram Sevak (Multi Purpose) on the basis of aforesaid select list. When nothing has been done, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the Special Civil Applications.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that once names of the petitioners has been placed in select list, and when that select list is to remain in operation till the next select list is prepared, they have acquired right of apppointment to the posts. It has next been contended that the select list so prepared could not have been brought to an end only on the ground that the Rules were amended, as the amended Rules could not have been given retrospective effect. The amended rules are only prospective. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of P. Mahendran and Ors. v State of Karnataka and Ors. , reported in AIR 1990 SC 405. Reliance has further been placed on the decision of this Court in L. P. A. No. 209 of 1992 decided on 23rd December 1993 and decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in Special Civil application No. 2614 of 1989 decided on 12th December 1991.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-District Panchayat, Shri R. C. Jani contended that the petitioners have not acquired any indefeasible right of appointment merely on the ground that they have been empaneled. I