ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vicky B. Mehta on behalf of the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Sahil Trivedi on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following prayers:-

“(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, by holding that the petitioners are eligible and entitled to be appointed on the post of Vidhya Sahayak pursuant to the advertisement of Vidhya Sahayak “backlog” appointment published by the District Primary Education Officer, Panchmahal at Godhra and further be pleased to direct the respondents to give an appointment on the post of Vidhya Sahayak with arrears and all consequential benefits including continuity of service;

(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, by holding that the petitioners being more meritorious as the petitioner no.1 stood at Sr. no.416 and the petitioner no.2 stood at Sr. no.422 ahead of Kamol Gitaben Bhursinghbhai who stood at Sr. no.430, are entitled for appointment on the post of Vidhya Sahayak and further be pleased to direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioners, with arrears and all consequential benefits including continuity of service;

(c) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, by directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners dated 3.10.2023 as expeditiously as possible within a time bound schedule and to communicate the outcome of the said representation to the petitioners; As Annexure-J

(d) Grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.3 had published an advertisement on 25.01.2007 for appointing Vidyasahayak on backlog vacancies and whereas it is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had appeared in the selection process and on 12.03.2007, the petitioners were called for the purpose of document verification and whereas after the document verification, a list had been prepared, which shows the merit-wise standing of the candidates. It is the case of the petitioners that while petitioner No.1 was at serial No.416 of the said list, the petitioner No.2 was at serial No.422 in the said list and whereas a candidate named Kamol Gitaben Bhursingbhai who was at serial No.430 of the said list had been appointed and whereas since the said candidate has lesser marks than the petitioners and was much below the petitioners in the select list, therefore, the petitioners being aggrieved, have approached this Court challenging the said action.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta on behalf of the petitioners would submit that a perusal of the list makes it apparent that the petitioners had a better claim than the candidate who according to the petitioners had been appointed and whereas since the petitioners were not made aware about the reason for the candidature of the petitioners not being considered, the petitioner No.1 had preferred an application under the RTI on 01.07.2016, seeking relevant information, more particularly, information as to why the petitioners had not been appointed and the circumstances in which the candidate who was appointed had been given appointment. Learned advocate would submit that the requested information not been provided, the petitioner No.1 had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 16.01.2017 and whereas inspite of the appellate authority directing the respondents to provide the requisite information, the same had not been provided. Learned advocate would submit that it is under such circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta would submit that the present issue would not be barred by delay