Employees in similar conditions cannot be treated differently; the arbitrary rejection of regularization applications violates the principle of equality.

JUDGMENT :

NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.B.S.Patel appearing with learned advocate Mr.Chirag Patel on behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Nirali Sarda appearing on behalf of the respondent –State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioners challenge order dated 31.03.2014 rejecting the representation of the petitioner which representation had been preferred as per the decision of this Court as well as order dated 30.04.2013 based upon which the main impugned order dated 31.03.2014 had been passed.

3. The facts, leading to the present petition, indicative of a long and checkered history, and whereas, only such facts as are relevant for the purpose for deciding the present petition, would be referred to:-

3.1. It would appear that the petitioner – Trust was running an Ashramshala at Village: Jetpur, Taluka: Nandod, District: Narmada with the requisite permissions catering to the needs of around 120 students. It appears that functioning of the Ashramshala had run into difficulty and whereas, the Trust had constructed a building for running the Ashramshala at Village: Virpur which was located 1.5 kms from Jetpur and had moved an application for revival of the permission and whereas, upon the same being rejected, the petitioner had challenged the same before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.962/2005 and whereas, the said writ petition came to be allowed vide an order dated 13.07.2006.

3.2. It would appear that vide the said order, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and whereas, it would appear that again, the request of the petitioner had been rejected vide an order dated 18.04.2007, which came to be challenged before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.18539/2007 and whereas, the said petition had been allowed by a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide decision dated 05.12.2007 more particularly to the extent of remanding the matter back to the respondents for a fresh decision.

3.3. It would appear that ultimately, vide a resolution dated 23/24.06.2008, the Tribal Development Department had re- approved the Ashramshala of the petitioner subject to certain conditions. It would be pertinent to mention here that before passing of the Government Resolution dated 23/24.06.2008, the Ashramshala had been made functional by the petitioner and whereas, the same had been inspected by the respondents. It would also appear that the petitioner had appointed two teaching staff and two non-teaching staff and whereas, a question arose as regards the salary to be paid to such staff appointed by the petitioners.

3.4. It appears that on a request made by the petitioners, the concerned authority had called upon the petitioners to inform the authority as regards the process which had been undertaken by the petitioners before appointing the teaching and non-teaching staff and whereas, it would clearly appear that the petitioner – institution had not undertaken any elaborate process for appointing the staff in question. It would appear thereafter that since the request of the petitioners for release of grant for salary of the staff in question had been rejected, the petitioners had approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.3733/2010. It would appear that a learned Coordinate Bench vide decision dated 27.09.2010, had rejected the writ petition preferred by the petitioners.

3.5. It would further appear that the petitioners had thereafter approached the Hon’ble Divis