Gujarat High Court
Swastik Kelavani Samaj vs Mrudula Mahashankar Raval on 1 April, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4352/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4352 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
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 ?
================================================================
SWASTIK KELAVANI SAMAJ
Versus
MRUDULA MAHASHANKAR RAVAL & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR BAIJU JOSHI(1207) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MEGHA CHITTALIYA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 3
MR CHETAN K PANDYA(1973) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ASMITA V PATEL(5356) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 01/04/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of present petition under Article 226 & 227 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4352/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs :
"(A) quash and set aside the orders dated 18 th January 2005, at
Annexure E and the order dated 17th March 2008 at Annexure G
passed by the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal;
(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition,
execution, implementation and operation of order dated 18 th
January 2005 at Annexure E passed by the Gujarat Primary
Education Tribunal, may be stayed;
(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition,
execution, implementation and operation of order dated 17 th March
2008 at Annexure G passed by the Gujarat Primary Education
Tribunal, may be stayed;
(D) Ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of para (C) and (D)
hereinabove may please be granted;
(E) Such other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and
proper in the facts of the case may be granted."
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as
under :
2.1 The petitioner is a Trust duly registered under the
provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The
petitioner initially had been running various educational
institutions including Rina English School as well as Rina
English School, Gujarati Medium for primary section. As per the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4352/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
claim of the respondent No.1 that she was appointed as a
Teacher in the year 1986. Thereafter, she had served at other
places from the year 1987 till 1994. It is the case of the
petitioner that the respondent No.1 preferred Application
No.220 of 1992 before the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") on the ground that
since 13 months she had not been paid her salaries and from
June 1992 she was not permitted to perform her duties.
2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had
initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No.1
and the respondent No.1 was suspended from the service,
which action was approved by the respondent No.2 -
Administrative Officer. The respondent No.1, thereafter,
preferred Application No.92 of 1994 before the Tribunal
challenging the order of suspension. Pending the above
application, the petitioner had constituted an Inquiry
Committee and first show cause notice and charge-sheet were
also served upon the respondent No.1 and after following due
process of law, the inquiry proceedings were conducted by the
Inquiry committee and the said Committee had submitted its
report, whereby 2 members of the Committee had held that all
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4352/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
the five charges levelled against the respondent No.1 have
been proved beyond doubt. It is the case of the petitioner that
after a period of 45 days, the petitioner informed respondent
No.1 that her services have been terminated. Thereafter, the
respondent No.1 preferred Application No.156 of 1994 before
the Tribunal. Due to unavoidable circumstances, the Secretary
of the petitioner - Trust was unwell, his wife also expired and
due to some social reasons, the petitioner could not participate
actively in such proceedings. As a result, the case of the
petitioner could not be put up properly before the Tribunal and
ultimately, on 18.01.2005, the Tribunal passed the final order
directing the petitioner - Trust to reinstate the respondent
No.1 in service and to pay 100% back-wages from the date of
termination of respondent No.1 i.e. 18.07.1994.
2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was
never served with the copy of the order passed in the review
application dated 17th March, 2008. It so happened that
respondent No.1 herein has preferred Execution Application
No.4 of 2005 before the learned Tribunal for the execution of
the order passed by it and during the pendency of such
application, rejoinder was filed somewhere in July/August 2009.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4352/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
The impugned order passed in review application was enclosed
alongwith such rejoinder. Only then the petitioner came to
know about the passing of orders in Review Application No.4 of
2005 as well as 5 of 2005. Upon inquiry, the petitioner found
that the review applications preferred earlier by the petitioner
have been rejected.
2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders passed
by the Tribunal dated 18.01.2005 produced at Annexure E as
well as the order passed by the Tribunal in Review Application
Nos.4 and 5 dated 17.03.2008 produced at Annexure G, the
petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 226
& 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Baiju Joshi, appearing on behalf of
the petitioner - Trust, has submitted that the orders passed by
the Tribunal are neither legal nor proper and therefore,
deserves to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that
the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4352/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
appointment of respondent No.1 Teacher itself was illegal,
under the circumstances, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
entertain the application preferred by the respondent No.1 and
therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be
rejected only on the ground of want of jurisdiction. He has
submitted that the respondent No.1 cannot be termed as
teacher under the provisions of the Primary Education Act,
1947 for the reason that the respondent No.1 was not
appointed as per the mandatory provisions of the Primary
Education Act and therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
entertain such an application filed by the person who is
illegally appointed. He has further submitted that the Tribunal
has erred in entertaining such an application preferred by the
Teacher who is admittedly appointed without following due
process of law and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal
is bad in eye of law as being without jurisdiction.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Joshi has submitted that the
petitioner found that the respondent Teacher has committed
misconduct and therefore, a show-cause notice was given,
charge-sheet was issued and after constituting an Inquiry
Committee, the inquiry was held against the respondent No.1
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4352/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
Teacher and her service came to be terminated. He has further
submitted that since the petitioner was not getting enough
students for the primary section, the Primary School was
closed down in the year 1999. He has also submitted that it is
true that the petitioner could not draw the attention of the
Tribunal of such aspect that beyond the year 1999, no primary
school was being run and managed by the petitioner Trust, the
petitioner Trust was managing a Secondary School and under
the circumstances, even otherwise the order of reinstatement
could not be complied with. He has further submitted that so
far as the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the review
applications are concerned, the Tribunal has simply held that
the contentions raised in the review applications do not fall
within the review jurisdiction and therefore, such review
applications are dismissed without dealing with any of the
arguments and contentions raised in the review applications
and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the
review applications is bad in eye of law and deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
5. As against that, learned advocate Mr.Chetan Pandya,
appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, has opposed the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4352/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
present petition and submitted that the present petition was
admitted by this Court on 14.05.2010 and this Court granted
interim relief by staying the benefit under the impugned order
under condition to pay salary upto the date of the alleged
closure of the school. However, the reinstatement and other
benefits were subject to the final disposal of the present
petition. He has further submitted that in the year 2021, the
respondent No.1 had moved an application before this Court
for expeditious hearing of the petition, wherein, she has
categorically submitted in paragraph no.4 that till today the
order dated 14.05.2010 passed by this Court has not been
complied with by the present petitioner.
6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the material placed on record.
It is relevant to note herein that the school run by the
petitioner Trust came to be closed and was not functioning and
at present the said Rina English School is not in existence as it
was closed down. The said fact is supported by the affidavit-in-
reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 - District Education
Officer, Rajkot. In response to the contention raised by the
learned advocate Mr.Pandya for the respondent No.1 with
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4352/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
regard to compliance of the order dated 14.05.2010 passed by
this Court, today, learned advocate Mr.Joshi appearing for the
petitioner was not able to make any affirmative submission.
The order dated 14.05.2010 passed by this Court reads as
under :
"Rule. The order of the Tribunal is stayed on condition that:-
1. If the school is closed, as stated by the deponent at page 76,
then the respondent No.1 will be paid salary upto the date of
closure.
2. Other benefits will be decided at the time of final hearing of the
matter; and
3. Reinstatement will be subject to the result of the petition."
6.1 Considering the submissions canvassed by both the sides
and considering the fact that the petitioner has failed to
comply with the directions issued by this Court vide order
dated 14.05.2010 at the time of admission of this petition, I am
of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be
dismissed mainly on the ground that the order passed by the
Tribunal as well as the order passed by this Court at the time
of admission of this petition are not complied with by the
petitioner - Trust.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition being
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4352/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
devoid of any merits is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
8. It is open for the petitioner that in case of any difficulty,
he may revive this petition by way of filing fresh petition,
which shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance
with law.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
