Krishankumar J. Thakur vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 13136 Guj

     C/SCA/15443/2008                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15443 of 2008


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                   NO
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                            NO

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                  NO
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question                  NO
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                         KRISHANKUMAR J. THAKUR
                                  Versus
                        STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY(1060) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MEET THAKKAR, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                                Date : 01/09/2021

                               ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 21.02.2008/22.02.2008 in Application Nos. 226 of 2006 and 177 of 2007 passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal at Ahmedabad. The

C/SCA/15443/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021

petitioner had filed the application before the Tribunal challenging the orders of the District Education Officer (DEO) who by the aforesaid orders had declined to extend the protection of surplus to the petitioner. This was on the ground of he being involved in committing fraud by the management against the State Government.

2. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that a registered private secondary school was run in the name of 'Shanti Niketan Hindi High School' in Odhav. It was a linguistic minority institution. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 20.07.1987 and thereafter as a Head Master on 15.06.1990.

3. The Tribunal notes that based on a complaint lodged by two teachers before the Vigilance Commissioner, Gandhinagar, a raid was carried out at the School premises. On the basis of a report submitted by the team of Commissioner of Schools, an order of 14.07.2004 was passed withholding complete grant of the concerned school. It appears that due to the collusion of the trustees with the petitioner, it was the case of the Commissioner that by showing inflated strength of pupils the management had obtained grant. An FIR being C.R. No. 503 of 2004 was filed before the Odhav Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 etc as a result of which the registration of the school was cancelled on 08.12.2004. Further perusal of the order of the Tribunal indicates that on the registration of the school being cancelled and the FIR lodged against the petitioner he surrendered before the Police Station and was released on bail. Several employees, 33 number were granted protection of surplus whereas the petitioner was not so given the benefit on the ground that the petitioner was involved in the fraud so committed and therefore did not befit the protection.

C/SCA/15443/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2021

4. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal would indicate that considering the scheme of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 read with Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1974, the Tribunal has held that when the very object of the scheme of surplus is considered, when it was found that the employees like the petitioner were involved in a fraud played with the management, the case of giving such a protection to the petitioner was not befitting enough and the DEO therefore did not exercise the administrative decision in favour of the petitioner. The Tribunal has considered various decisions of the Supreme Court on the question of administrative discretion and observed that the scheme of surplus does not flow from any statutory provision. The scheme is evolved by the State Government with a laudable object to ensure that good people are retained in the field of education. The applications were therefore dismissed. No reason for causing any interference is called for.

5. Mr. Upadhyay, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that he no longer has instructions to appear in this matter as the papers are taken away from him. He informs that even otherwise the petitioner has died four years ago. This court even otherwise does not find any reason for interference in the orders impugned in the petition. Moreover, in view of the fact that the petition is devoid of merit and even now that the petitioner has expired, legal heirs not being brought on record, the petition stands abated. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) DIVYA