Gujarat High Court
Mehta Mahesh Somabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 21 December, 2021
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/12094/2013 ORDER DATED: 21/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12094 of 2013
==========================================================
MEHTA MAHESH SOMABHAI & 4 other(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJ YAGNIK(1372) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR ADITYASINH JADEJA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DK NAKRANI(500) for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,7,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 21/12/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction
directing the respondent authorities, not to terminate the
services of the petitioners to accommodate surplus teachers
and further to absorb them in accordance with law. There are
further ancillary prayers with regard to the absorption in
service.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Yagnik, appearing for the
petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of the
petition, the State Government has issued a Resolution dated
24.10.2017 for regularising the teachers who possess TAT
(Teachers Aptitude Test) and are having the staff profile and
outward number. It is submitted by him that at least 178
teachers have been regularised and those teachers, at least 45
teachers, those who are having the certificate of TAT
examination or staff profile, are terminated, even after they
are protected by the interim order of this Court and their
C/SCA/12094/2013 ORDER DATED: 21/12/2021
names are not included.
2.1 Learned advocate Mr.Yagnik appearing for the petitioners
has submitted that the petitioners are protected by the order
passed by this Court on 30.07.2013, they are permitted to
serve as visiting faculty or are appointed on adhoc basis. It is
submitted by him that all the petitioners have possess the
requisite qualification of the TAT examination and have a staff
profile and are also allotted the outward numbers and hence
their names are required to be included in the Resolution
dated 24.10.2017, though they are terminated from the
service. It is submitted by him that such discriminatory
approach cannot be adopted by the State Government and it
was incumbent upon the State Government to include the
names of the petitioners in the said resolution, however they
have excluded and placed their names in the separate list,
which comprises of 45 candidates. Thus, he has submitted that
the respondent authorities may be directed to pass necessary
orders including the names of the petitioners considering for
the purpose of regularisation.
3. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader has
submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to such benefits
since as per the conditions incorporated in the Resolution
dated 24.10.2017, first of all, they should have been in service
and secondly, they should also possess the requisite
qualifications. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has
supplied two separate lists, having details of the petitioners.
The same is ordered to be taken on record. He has submitted
that the writ petition may not be entertained.
C/SCA/12094/2013 ORDER DATED: 21/12/2021
4. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties,
and perused the conditions of the Resolution dated
24.10.2017, which was issued by the Education Department of
the State of Gujarat, whereby and wherein total 178 teachers,
who are similarly situated to the present petitioners are
absorbed and regularised in service. The said conditions reads
as under. (translated from original Gujarati)
"(1) The
fixed pay prescribed vide
Education Department Resolution dated:
17/10/2017 mentioned at reference(4),
shall be applicable to such teachers.
Further, this regularized appointment
shall be applicable to the employees
under fixed pay subject to the
prevailing provisions of Finance
Department.
(2) The benefits of pay difference
for the previously rendered services or
any other benefits regarding the
services shall not be admissible to
such teachers, and they can not raise
any claim to get such benefits. The
concerned District Education Officer
shall have to obtain consent and
undertaking in this regard.
(3) On account of regularizing the
services of such teachers, the
concerned schools can not claim any
kind of additional grant for the
previously rendered services by such
teachers.
(4) Such regularized appointments
shall be subject to the final judgment
of the sub-judice case of Hon'ble High
Court filed by some of the teachers
mentioned in the Annexure-2 appended
with this Resolution."
5. It is not disputed by the State Authority that all the
C/SCA/12094/2013 ORDER DATED: 21/12/2021
petitioners are possessing TAT certificate and also having a
staff profile along with outward number. The petitioners (i)
Mehta Mahesh Somabhai was appointed on 17.07.1998. He
has cleared his TAT examination and staff profile was allotted
on 21.06.2008 and by the interim order dated 30.07.2013, he
was protected against his termination, however he was
terminated on 31.05.2015, (ii) Mehta Rachanaben
Brijestkumar, was appointed on 12.05.2003. She has cleared
her TAT examination and staff profile was allotted on
23.10.2008 and by the interim order dated 30.07.2013, she
was protected against her termination, however she was
terminated on 20.06.2016, (iii) Minakshiben Narsighbhai Patel,
was appointed on 15.07.1999. She has cleared her TAT
examination and staff profile was allotted on 21.06.2008 and
by the interim order dated 30.07.2013, she was protected
against her termination, however she was terminated on
31.05.2015. So far the case of petitioner No.4 - Gohil Digvijay
Bhavbubha, is concerned, the writ petition will not survive, as
he has been already regularized in service. The petitioner No.5
- Desai Shivali Pravinchandra was appointed on 12.06.2000.
She has cleared her TAT examination and staff profile was
allotted on 29.07.2013 and by the interim order dated
30.07.2013, she was protected against her termination,
however she was terminated on 20.06.2016. All these
aforesaid facts are undisputed.
6. It appears that despite the interim order passed by this
Court, the petitioners were terminated and as a sequel thereof,
their names are not included in the Resolution dated
24.10.2017. Thus, the action of the respondent authorities
terminating the service of the petitioners is illegal and contrary
C/SCA/12094/2013 ORDER DATED: 21/12/2021
to the interim orders passed by this Court and hence, their
names could not have been excluded from the list of the
candidates annexed to the Resolution dated 24.10.2017. The
State authorities are directed to pass similar order / resolution,
as passed in favour of 178 candidates. Since they cannot be
discriminated merely because they were terminated despite
interim protection of this Court. Even if such teachers who
satisfy all the conditions such as clearing of the TAT, having
staff profile and outward number, and are terminated without
there being any interim orders cannot be discriminated. Such
teachers may not be fortunate to obtain interim orders, but
such factor cannot be weighed against them. If the State
Government has decided to confer benefits to the teachers
who fulfill the aforesaid conditions, such benefits are required
to be extended to such teachers.
7. Necessary orders shall be passed as passed in terms of
the Resolution dated 24.10.2017 in favour of petitioners
extending the benefit of absorption / regularization. Such
orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of copy of the order of this Court.
8. With the above directions and observations, this writ
petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
MAHESH BHATI/02
