1. The present Special Leave Petitions under Art.136 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioners in relation to the order dated 04/03/2021 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 4293 of 2021. On the one hand, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking leave to appeal against the said order. On the other hand, the prayers in the present Special Leave Petitions proceed on the premise that the course adopted by the High Court in the order dated 04/03/2021 ought to be extended to them, and they seek, in substance, a direction in the nature of mandamus requiring the competent authority to consider their grievance, including their representation, and to pass a reasoned order thereon after affording due opportunity of hearing. The Special Leave Petitions are, therefore, misconceived at the threshold, as they combine an ostensible challenge to the order dated 04/03/2021 with a prayer to secure the benefit of that very order in their own favour. These Special Leave Petitions are being heard together as the petitioners seek the benefit of the same order.

2. The facts giving rise to the present Special Leave Petitions are as follows.
2.1. The petitioners state that the State Government issued a circular dated 02/01/1990 for filling backlog vacancies of primary school teachers reserved for Scheduled Tribes. Pursuant thereto, an advertisement was issued on 13/02/1990 and 15/02/1990 inviting applications from eligible candidates.
2.2. The petitioners state that they participated in the recruitment process and were appointed as primary school teachers on 12/03/1991. They further state that the State Government subsequently alleged irregularities in the recruitment process and, by orders stated to be dated 12/05/1993, the petitioners were discharged from service.
2.3. The petitioners and other persons approached the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (hereinafter "the High Court") by filing Special Civil Application No. 3141 of 1993, which came to be allowed by an order dated 22/09/1993. The petitioners were thereafter taken back in service, and show cause notices were issued on 17/12/1993. The petitioners state that their services were again terminated on 30/05/1994.
2.4. The petitioners thereafter pursued remedies before the Primary Education Tribunal. The petitioners state that, after a remand by the High Court by order dated 17/01/1996 in Special Civil Application No. 12312 of 1994, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by order dated 17/10/1996 and directed reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages. The petitioners further state that the State Government set aside the Tribunal's order by exercising review power under S.24(4) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 (hereinafter "the 1947 Act") by an order dated 10/06/1997.
2.5. The order dated 10/06/1997 was challenged before the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 4635 of 1997, and the High Court, by order dated 09/10/1997, set aside the said order and directed a fresh decision after hearing. Thereafter, the State Government passed orders dated 07/04/1998 and 22/04/1999, which the petitioners state adversely affected their claim.
2.6. The petitioners challenged the orders dated 07/04/1998 and 22/04/1999 before the High Court. A group of petitions, including Special Civil Application No. 10801 of 2003 and allied matters, came to be dismissed by the High Court by a common judgment and order dated 25/03/2009. The petitioners state that appeals were carried to the Division Bench, and by a common judgment and order dated 06/05/2011 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2051 of 2010 and connected matters, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals, while also issuing directions to the State Government to undertake an exercise in relation to the identification of backlog vacancies and to proceed thereafter in accordance with law.
2.7. The petitioners submit that, subsequent to the above, other persons s