( 1 ) THE petition challenges inaction on the part of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Physics in Gujarat Education Service Class-II (Collegiate Branch) at Government Arts, Science and Commerce Colleges.

( 2 ) THE Gujarat Public Service Commission ("the GPSC" for brevity) issued advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Lecturer in Physics in Gujarat Education Service Class-II (Collegiate Branch) at Government Arts, Science and Commerce Colleges. 38 posts were advertised, out of which 3 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The petitioner is a Scheduled Caste Candidate. By notice dated 9. 6. 2000, the GPSC published the select list and the waiting list. There is also no dispute about the fact that the petitioners name was kept at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list. The candidates in the select list as well as in the waiting list were also individually informed by separate letter dated 22. 6. 2000. In the said letter addressed to the petitioner, it was stated that inclusion of the candidate in the waiting list did not confer any right of appointment and that the waiting list would remain in operation for a period of two years or till declaration of the result of the next examination, whichever is earlier.

( 3 ) INSPITE of availability of GPSC selected candidates for the posts of lecturer in Physics and in various other disciplines, the Government was not filling in the advertised posts for which the select lists were already forwarded by the GPSC in June/july 2000 or around that time for Physics and other subjects. Some of the GPSC selected candidates, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No. 2395 of 2001 and cognate petitions. At the hearing of the said petitions, the State Government contended that the ad-hoc lecturers had earlier filed petitions for their regularization and that although their writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench of this Court on 29. 9. 1999 had permitted such ad-hoc lecturers to make a representation to the State Government for their regularization and that, therefore, the matter was under consideration. This Court, therefore, by ad-interim order dated 4. 5. 2001 directed the Government to decide the representation of ad-hoc lecturers by 10. 6. 2001 and the hearing of SCA No. 2395 of 2001 and cognate petitions was adjourned to 15. 6. 2001. Affidavit dated 14. 6. 2001 came to be filed on behalf of the State Government stating that pursuant to the above interim order, the State Government decided to regularize the services of ad-hoc lecturers subject to certain procedure including reference to the GPSC to obtain its approval. Subsequently, however, another affidavit dated 30. 8. 2001 came to be filed on behalf of the State Government taking the stand that in view of the recommendations of the high level committee appointed by the Government to consider the issues, the State Government has decided that the candidates duly recommended by the GPSC should be given appointment by the State Government and that after accommodating GPSC selectees, if any vacancies are available, then ad-hoc lecturers can be continued.

( 4 ) ON account of the aforesaid stand of the State Government, the ad-hoc lecturers continued to enjoy the protection against termination of their services even after availability of GPSC selectees and ultimately that litigation concluded before the learned Single Judge on 15. 7. 2002 when the learned Single Judge rendered judgment in the said group of petitions being SCA No. 2664 of 2001 and cognate petitions (Shah Jolly Chandravadan vs. State of Gujarat - reported in 2003 (2) GLR 1190 ). The Court held that when GPSC selectees are available, ad-hoc lecturers have no right to continue in service and gave, inter alia, the following directions :-" (A) Considering the totality of facts and settled legal proposition in this field of service jurisprudence, prayer for c