J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. Since the issues raised in both the captioned petitions are interrelated, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants, former teachers, have prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(A) A writ of mandamus, or a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued:

(i) To quash and set aside the order dated 29.11.05 passed by respondent No. 1 granting permission to the respondent No. 5 - school to close down the classes, in the interest of justice;

(ii) Be pleased to direct that the action of the respondent No. 5 for closing down the class is absolutely illegal, unjust and violative of Fundamental rights of the petitioners;

(iii) Be pleased to direct the respondents to ensure that petitioners shall be given their due and payable salaries till date and shall be paid their wages from time to time until order is passed terminating them in accordance with law;

(iv) The respondent No. 5 may be directed to pay regular salary to all the teachers and further the petitioners may be permitted to resume their duties in respondent No. 5 school;

IN THE ALTERNATIVE

(v) To direct that the State Government shall frame adequate scheme in cases of closure/reduction in classes by primary schools and direct that the petitioners and other teachers may not be terminated from services and they shall be absorbed elsewhere in the school situated in Surat Area, in which there is a need of teachers and before appointment of any new private primary teacher in the area of Surat, the petitioners and other teachers who are surplus because of so called reduction of classes shall be first of all absorbed;

(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the implementation, operation and execution of the order dated 29.11.05 passed by the respondent No. 1 giving permission to close down the classes to the respondent No. 5 school, may kindly be stayed and the respondent No. 5 may further be directed to maintain from acting in furtherance to the impugned order dated 29.11.2005, in the interest of justice;

(C) The respondent No. 5 may be directed to pay arrears of salary to all the petitioners and continue of pay the same to the petitioners. The respondent authorities may also be directed to ensure that petitioners shall be given their due and payable salaries;

(D) Any other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit, in the interest of justice, kindly be granted."

3. The facts of this case may be summarized as under;

4. The writ applicants came to be appointed on 01.08.1989 as the Assistant Teachers in the school run and managed by the respondent No. 5. They all were appointed after following the due process of law. They were appointed in accordance with Schedule-F of the Bombay Primary Education Act. It appears that the respondent No. 5 sought the necessary permission from the Director of Primary Education to close down the eight classes of the Primary School.

5. The Director of Primary Education passed an order dated 1.8.2003 granting permission in favour of the respondent No. 5 to close down the eight classes of the Primary School. The order is at page-49, Annexure, E to this petition.

6. The writ applicants were informed about the same vide notice dated 19.11.2003.

7. The order passed by the Director of Primary Education dated 1.8.2003 granting permission to the respondent No. 5-School to close down the classes was made a subject matter of challenge by filing Special Civil Application No. 16463 of 2003. The said writ application was rejected by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.9.2004. While rejecting the writ application, the Court observed as under;

"5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. A proposal was submitted on behalf of respondent No. 5 to close down 8 classes. The said proposal was submitted as required under section 40(b) of