RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.- Judgment and order dated 23.03.2010 of the learned Single Judge is impugned in this petition. The cause of petition is very succinctly put in para-1 by the learned Single Judge, which is reproduced for ready perusal:-

“1. The petitioners are an association and its president representing the employees serving on class-III posts in various industrial training institutes under the State Government. They have invoked Article 226 of the Constitution with the grievance that, by virtue of the Foreman Instructor in the Gujarat Skill Training Service Class-III Recruitment Rules, 2008 (for short “the Rules”) notified on 29.9.2008, the Government has included in the cadre of “Foreman Instructor”, Group Instructor (Plastic Processing Operator Trade), Group Instructor (Computer Trade) and Junior Training Officer (Advance Vocational Training Scheme). The Government has, by those rules, not only included the aforesaid three posts in Annexure-1 to the Rules, but provided in Rule 2 of the Rules that the categories in Annexure-1 shall include all other posts as may be declared by a general or special order by the Government. The Rules are made to provide for regulating recruitment to the post of Foreman Instructor in the Gujarat Skill Training Service Class-III in the Subordinate Service of the Directorate of Employment and Training. And Rule 3 thereof provides for promotion to the post of Foreman Instructor Class III of a person of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the eligible persons as also for recruitment by direct selection. The grievance of the petitioners is that by indirectly expanding the cadre of Foreman Instructor, the Rules have included in that category not only Foreman Instructors but the aforesaid three categories of employees, who were traditionally treated as subordinate or inferior to the Foreman Instructors and thus that part of the Rules were violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by treating unequals as equals.”

2. Learned Advocate for the appellants-original petitioners vehemently argued that the respondents have caused injustice to a set of employees who were Foreman Instructors and by inclusion of three different cadres of (i) Group Instructor (Plastic Processing Operator Trade), (ii) Group Instructor (Computer Trade) and (iii) Junior Training Officer (Advance Vocational Training Scheme), have affected their promotional avenues to the post of Principal Class-II/ Senior Surveyor Class-II/ Technical Officer Class-II/ Training-cum-Placement Officer/ Trade Testing Officer/ Senior Training Officer.

2.1 Learned Advocate for the appellants-original petitioners submitted that earlier it was Foreman Instructor who was eligible to be promoted to the aforesaid posts, but firstly by notification dated 29.09.2008, they included the aforesaid three set of employees in the cadre of Foreman Instructor. In this regard, learned Advocate for the appellants-original petitioners invited attention of the Court to Annexure-F, page No.66 (memo of petition), wherein it is stated in Rule-2 as under:-

“2. In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires “Foreman Instructor” means a post included in the Annexure-I annexed to these rules and shall include all other post as may be declared by a General or Special order by the Government as such.”

2.2 Learned Advocate for the appellants-original petitioners also invited attention of the Court to Annexure-E, page No.59 (memo of petition), wherein Rule-2 provides as under:-

“2. Appointment to the post of Principal Class-II/ Senior Surveyor Class-II/ Technical Officer Class-II/ Training cum Placement Officer/ Trade Testing Officer/ Senior Training Officer in the Gujarat Skill Training Service, shall be made either:-

(a) by promotion of a person of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the persons who,

(i) xxx xxx xxx

(ii) xxx xxx xxx

(iii) xxx xxx xxx

(b) by direct selection.”

2.3 Under sub-rule 2(a)(i), along with Foreman Instructor, o