JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned AGP appearing for respondent State, Mr. Chirag Patel, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 5 and Mr. Kaushal Pandya, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 4 waive service of notice of rule.

1.1 Present petition has been filed by the petitioners -teachers who were working with respondent no. 5 school praying to quash and set aside the order dated 25.02.2019 and also the order dated 29.11.2005 passed by respondent no. 1 granting permission to the respondent no. 5 school to close down the classes. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction that the respondents shall ensure that petitioners shall be given their due and payable salaries till date and shall be paid their wages from time to time until the order is passed terminating them in accordance with law by declaring the termination order dated 19.05.2004 as nonest and illegal. In case of the retired petitioners no. 1, 2 and 5, the petitioners have sought salary until retirement and all retirement benefits to the said petitioners.

2. The litigation has a chequered history. The facts, in short, read as under:

2.1 The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in the school which was managed by the Akhand Anand Vidhya Bhavan Trust, Surat (respondent no. 5). In 2003, the respondent no. 5 filed an application before the District Education Officer, Surat under Section 40 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) for closure of 8 classes of the school. By that time, the petitioners had put in almost 14 years of service.

2.2 It is the case of the petitioners that on 18.6.2003, they received a letter from the school intimating them that the hearing, on the application filed for closure of some classes, would be held by the office of the Director of Primary Education on 27.06.2003 and therefore they should remain present before him. On receipt of that communication, the petitioners made a representation on 27.06.2003 to protest against the proposed closure of classes. It was their case that the application for closure of some classes was an indirect manner resorted to by the management to terminate the services of the teachers. After hearing the representative of the respondent no. 5, the teachers and the District Education Officer, Surat, the Director of Primary Education passed an order dated 01st August 2003 whereby he sanctioned closure of 8 classes of Akhand Anand Vidhya Bhavan, Surat (Primary School) with effect from June 2003. One of the conditions of the order of closure was that the provisions of Section 40B of the Act shall have to be complied with.

2.3 That order was challenged by the present petitioners by filing Special Civil Application No. 16463 of 2003. The petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 77 of 2005. By a CAV order dated 14.06.2005, a Division Bench of this court allowed the appeal by quashing the order of closure as illegal and directed that the application of the school be decided afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, representatives of the management and the District Education Officer. The court directed that the parties should appear before the District Education Officer on 14.07.2005. The petitioners therefore received a communication dated 12.07.2005 from the respondent management and on 14.07.2005 they asked for certain documents as directed by the court in the Division Bench so as to defend their case and oppose the closure of the school.

2.4 The proceedings took place and pursuant to the order of the Division Bench, the Director of Primary Education passed an order dated 29.11.2005 granting permission once again to respondent no. 5 to close down the eight classes. One of those terms and conditions again was that the closure shall be subject to compliance of Section 40B of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947.

2.5 That order of clo