Gujarat High Court
Pravinbhai Rayajibhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 9 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7862/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7862 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7862 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PRAVINBHAI RAYAJIBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MUNJAAL BHATT, Advocate for MS SHAILEE S JOSHI(11582)
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS DEVANSHIBA RANA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR UM SHASTRI(830) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 09/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Munjaal Bhatt for learned advocate Ms. Shailee S. Joshi for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Devanshiba Rana for the Respondents.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 06:31:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7862/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined Government Pleader Ms. Devanshiba Rana waives services of Notice of rule for the Respondents. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing, as the issue involved is very short.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
3.1 The case of the Petitioner, in nuce, is that, he was initially appointed as a primary teacher under the Respondents on 01.12.1984. Pursuant to due selection, he was deputed as Cluster Resource Centre (CRC) Coordinator under the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) by order dated 19.08.1997. Upon the conclusion of the DPEP on 30.06.2003, the Petitioner continued in the same capacity under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) with effect from 01.07.2003.
3.2 On 05.07.2003, while discharging his duties as CRC Coordinator, the Petitioner visited Dayal Kankra Varg Primary School and found No teachers present, including the Head Teacher, Smt. Deepikaben Dhulabhai Shrimali. He accordingly undertook teaching and served the mid-day meal.
The local Sarpanch, who also served as Chairman of the Village Education Committee (VEC), visited the school, recorded the absence of the staff, and prepared a Panch- Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 06:31:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7862/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined Case, to which the Petitioner was a signatory. 3.3 Subsequently, on 07.07.2003, the said Head Teacher lodged a complaint against the Petitioner with Respondent No. 3. It is the Petitioner's case that the complaint was actuated by mala fides and personal animosity, and that the complainant was herself facing allegations of misconduct and had been transferred by way of punishment. An inquiry was conducted through two Bit-Kelavani Nirikshaks, whose report allegedly found the complaint to be baseless. 3.4 Nevertheless, on 29.10.2004, Respondent No.3 issued orders cancelling the Petitioner's deputation as CRC Coordinator and directed his reversion to Khuntvadiya Vankod Primary School, Taluka Ghoghamba. These orders were passed without affording the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing and are alleged to be in breach of the principles of natural justice.
3.5 Aggrieved, the Petitioner instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 419/2004 before the Civil Court and applied for interim relief. His application for temporary injunction was rejected vide order dated 23.12.2004. The Civil Misc. Appeal No. 126/2004 preferred there against was also dismissed by the District Court on 09.02.2005. However, in para 18 of the Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 06:31:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7862/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined judgment, the court observed that the Petitioner ought to have been placed at a CRC centre or repatriated to a location proximate to his wife's place of service. The final order was subsequently modified by the District Court on 11.02.2005 to reflect this expectation.
3.6 At the relevant time, the Petitioner's wife was serving at Bhekhadiya Primary School. Despite this, Respondent No.3, by letter dated 16.04.2005, reiterated the earlier reversion order. The Petitioner objected and repeatedly sought implementation of the District Court's direction, through various communications dated 11.10.2005, 04.09.2006, 05.11.2007, and 17.12.2007. Nevertheless, Respondent No.3 continued to issue directions to report at the reverted post and ultimately issued a show cause Notice on 20.12.2007. The Petitioner contested the same. 3.7 Subsequently, the Petitioner was directed to attend a Transfer Camp on 04.05.2008 but reiterated his request for appointment as CRC Coordinator at the Mahuliya centre, where a vacancy allegedly existed. It was alleged that no inquiry under the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1997 was initiated, nor was the Petitioner granted an opportunity of hearing. Instead, Respondent No.3 Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 06:31:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7862/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined issued an order dated 13.02.2009 dismissing the Petitioner from service.
3.8 The Petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 24(2) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947. The District Primary Education Tribunal partly allowed the appeal on 01.06.2009, observing that the State Government could consider reappointing the Petitioner as a primary teacher. In furtherance of this, the Petitioner submitted representations dated 30.06.2009 and 05.12.2009.
3.9 On dismissal of Special Civil Application No. 9375/2010 on 27.08.2010 by the High Court, the Petitioner again approached the Tribunal. It was mentioned by the Petitioner that, despite earlier directions, the Tribunal passed a subsequent order dated 21.03.2011, communicated on 28.04.2011, upholding the dismissal order dated 13.02.2009 without any speaking reasons and without implementing its own earlier order dated 01.06.2009. The Petitioner contends that the Tribunal, in effect, exercised a power of review not vested in it by the statute.
4. Accordingly, the Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers:
Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 06:31:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7862/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined "(a) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 21-3-
2011/28-4-2011 passed by the District Primary Teachers Tribunal as per Annexure-L colly.
(b) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 13-2- 2009 passed by the respondent No.3 District Primary Education Officer, Godhara as per Annexure-D;
(c) to direct the respondents to give re-appointment to the petitioner in accordance with the order of the District Primary Teachers Tribunal dated 1-6-2009 as per Annexure -F;
(d) to direct re-instatement of the petitioner in service with the continuity of service and all other consequential benefits as if the impugned orders were never passed;
(e) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to direct the respondents to give re- appointment to the petitioner in accordance with the order of the District Primary Teachers 1-6-2009 as per Annexure -F; Tribunal dated (F) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus for direct the respondent authorities to grant all the pension any benefits, gratuity, leave encashment, etc, upon their retirement from service, and;
(G) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondent authorities to grant the retirement benefits along with regular higher pay scale to the applicant considering the continue service of the applicant with all ancillary and adjacent benefits as well as arrears with the interest therein, in the interest of justice. (H) Your Lordships may be pleased pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to make payment of provisional pension and provisional gratuity to the petitioners and/or in the interest of justice."
5. Mr.Munjaal Bhatt learned advocate has submitted that the petitioner, while approaching this Court in the year 2011 had a Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 06:31:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7862/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined clear case on merits inasmuch as the dismissal order dated 30.02.2009 was non speaking and the tribunal's own order, passed earlier on 01.06.2009 had not been implemented and therefore the impugned order dated 21.03.2011, communicated to the petitioner on 28.04.2011, was clearly erroneous and deserves to be set aside unfortunately, after waiting for 11 years, the petitioner's age of superannuation had been reached and today, except monetary compensation, no other order would do justice to the petitioner's cause.
6. Mr.Munjaal Bhatt, further submitted that it would be apparent from the interim order passed by this Court from time to time that the petitioner's prima facie case was accepted and it was only because the Respondent No.3 avoided a hearing and kept the matter pending without complying the interim orders of this Court, that the petitioner has been suffering.
7. As noted in so many different orders of this Court in previous proceedings, none appears for the Respondent No.3. Upon perusal of the affidavit in reply dated 28.09.2011 and the further affidavit in reply dated 19.08.2016 it will be seen that the respondent No.3 has primarily taken two defences: A. That the petitioner had remained absent continuously from work for a period of five years and therefore, he has abandoned the service. B. The petitioner had Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 06:31:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7862/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined an alternative and efficacious remedy against the order of the tribunal by way of revision before the State Government.
8. It will be seen from the order dated 11.02.2005 passed by the learned District Court that there was a clear direction upon the respondents including the Respondent No.3 to "place the appellant at other center as coordinator, or other wise at the place near his wife's place of service, at the earliest opportunity." The aforesaid directions were never followed by the Respondents and therefore, the Respondents cannot complaint that the petitioner has abandoned his service, simply because, the Respondents had not placed the petitioner at the proper place of service, as directed by the order dated 11.02.2005.
9. From the perusal of the orders dated 30.11.2011, 08.02.2012, 05.03.2012, 27.07.2016, 16.09.2016, 27.09.2016 and 20.03.2019, it is clear that for the last 14 years, in spite of the specific orders of this Court, the Respondent no.3 has neither complied with such directions nor has argued the matter on merits. Today also, the Respondent no.3 is not present in the Court through advocate. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner who had filed the instant petition in the year 2011 would have superannuated in the year 2022. The narration of the aforesaid events as encapsulated in great detail by the preceding orders of this Court, portrays a shocking and Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 06:31:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7862/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined harrowing sequence of inaction and lack of empathy, which, as recorded in the order dated 16.09.2016 (Coram: Hon'ble Smt. Justice Abhilasha Kumari) "in the view of this Court, this conduct does not behove the respondents, who hold responsible positions".
10. In view of the above and considering the fact that the Petitioner had waited ad-infinitum and knocked on the doors of justice, ad-nauseum, and would have eventually superannuated from the post of primary teacher, if appointed, this Court deems it fit to award a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- to the petitioner. The same shall be paid within a period of 6 weeks from the date of uploading of this order. The respondent no.3 shall further pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Gujarat State Legal Service Committee.
11. In view of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.7862 of 2011, the Civil Application no. 1 of 2024 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.
12. Rule is made absolute with the aforesaid extent.
(D.N.RAY,J) VARSHA DESAI/KAJAL Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 06:31:03 IST 2025