Gujarat High Court
Hiralal Vajesang Patel vs Principal on 24 February, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1405/2023 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1405 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1368 of 1991
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1405 of 2023
==========================================================
HIRALAL VAJESANG PATEL & ORS.
Versus
PRINCIPAL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 24/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. With the consent the matter is taken up for final disposal. The
appeal emanates from the order dated 24.01.2017, whereby the
learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the
respondent -School, assailing the judgment and order passed by the
Primary Education Tribunal, in Application No. 143 of 1988. Learned
Single Judge has altered the direction issued by the Tribunal
directing the reinstatement by payment of lump sum compensation
of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the appellants-teachers, who are
working in the School. Against the said judgment, the appellants -
teachers filed MCA No. 1 of 2018 for recalling, which was also
rejected by the order dated 15.12.2024. hence, the appellants are
constrained to file the present LPA.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1405/2023 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave appearing for
the appellants has submitted that the directions issued for payment
of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the appellants-teachers by the
learned Single Judge is required to be quashed and set aside, since
the Tribunal has found the termination of the appellants- teachers
as illegal and in violation of the provisions of Section 14(B) of the
Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947. It is thus, submitted that
since the termination is violation of the statutory provisions, the
Tribunal had precisely directed the School to reinstate the
appellants in service.
3. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas appearing for
the respondent No.3 has submitted that the School has no funds to
even pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- and the same is also borrowed
from the farmer. She has submitted that the School was started in
the year 1985 in the rented premises and though the appellants
were not qualified to be appointed, the then trustee appointed them
and since there were irregularities found by the authority, the
primary School was ordered to be de-recognized by the order dated
12.08.1988. She has further submitted that at that time class of
standard 8 to 10 were being continued in the School and then the
present trustee Shri Parmar, who is a farmer came to know that the
poor students will face the difficulty, if the School will be closed
down, hence he entered as a trustee in the year 1989. Thereafter,
she has submitted that the State-Authority also issued notices in the
year 2000 to vacate the premises and another rented premises was
taken in the same village for conducting the class room. It is
submitted that on the donation of Shri Zaverbhai Jesangbhai, the
rooms were constructed and accordingly name of the secondary
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1405/2023 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
school was changed from Zaverbhai Jesangbhai Patel to Z.J. Patel
Sarswati School, Dhavra and only three class rooms were there with
office. It is submitted that in the year 2010 in view of the right to
free and compulsory education, standard - 8 went into upper
primary section and thereby only standards 9 and 10 remained and
presently also standards 9 and 10 are continued, wherein, 70 % of
the students belong to ST / SC category. It is submitted that there is
no grant- in - aid secondary school and only two Jilla Panchayat
Schools are there and the School is grant-in-aid School and the
students cannot afford such fees. It is submitted that said trustee
only continued secondary School with a view to see that the more
student may not leave the education due to financial constraints
and hence, it is impossible for the present appellants to be reinstate
in the service in the primary section. It is submitted that the School
in which they are serving i.e. "Pranav Vidhayalay" was closed down
in the year 1988 and the appellant No.1 worked for two years and
eight months and whereas the appellant Nos. 2 and 4 worked for
only one year and eight months. It is submitted that by now 36
years have passed and since the appellants cannot be reinstated,
we offered cheque of Rs.50,000/- as directed by this Court, however,
the appellants are not accepting the same. Thus, it is urged that
looking to the weak financial condition of the trust, the present
appeal may not be entertained.
4. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties, in fact with regard to the poor financial condition
the School in which the applicants were serving was closed down in
the year 1988. It is true that the Tribunal has found discharge of the
appellants de-hors the provisions of the Statute and ordered
reinstatement. Considering the aforesaid facts, the learned Single
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1405/2023 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
Judge has directed to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- to
each of the the appellants teachers. Learned Single Judge has also
recorded that through out all these years stay was operating on the
judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. It is also not in dispute
that trust is granted aid by the State-Government and has no source
of income. There are only 9th and 10th Standards of secondary
section which are continuing in the School, after the original trust
was taken over by other trustee. By now 36 years have been
passed. In view of the subsequent development of cancellation of
registration and closing of the primary section reinstatement of the
appellants have become impossible.
5. Under the circumstances and looking to the financial
constraints of the respondent -Trust, we are not inclined to interfere
with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Looking to the service tenure of each of the appellants herein, the
amount of compensation fixed by the learned Single Judge is
appropriate. The respondent- School shall pay an amount of
Rs.50,000/- to each of the appellants as directed by the learned
Single Judge, within a period of four weeks from the date of this
order.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Application also stands disposed of.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(GITA GOPI,J)
prk
