Gujarat High Court
Machhi Rameshchandra Damodarbhai vs Principal- Shri B.N.High School on 11 September, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1064/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1064 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/9607/2010
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1064 of 2025
==========================================================
MACHHI RAMESHCHANDRA DAMODARBHAI
Versus
PRINCIPAL- SHRI B.N.HIGH SCHOOL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUDHANSHU A JHA(8345) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AAKASH GUPTA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR G M JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR VYOM H SHAH(9387) for
the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 11/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present appeal is directed against the
order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in the captioned writ petition filed
by the respondent-School challenging the
judgement and order dated 07.09.2009 passed by
the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal at
Ahmedabad (for short "Tribunal") in Application
No.74 of 2004.
2. The appellant had approached the Tribunal by
filing an application being Application No.74 of
2004 challenging his oral termination w.e.f
31.03.2004 and also prayed for difference of
salary with 18% interest. The Tribunal allowed
the application in part. The prayer for setting
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1064/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
aside the oral termination was disallowed,
whereas the Tribunal simultaneously directed the
respondents to pay the appellant full salary of
Assistant Teacher with allowances from 05.07.1996
to 28.02.2004. Being aggrieved, the respondent-
School challenged the same by filing the
captioned writ petition for quashing and setting
aside the judgement and order passed by the
Tribunal.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Jha appearing for the
appellant-Teacher has submitted that the learned
Single Judge fell in error in setting aside the
judgement and order passed by the Tribunal by
ignoring the fact that the appellant-Teacher was
appointed by the respondent-School on regular
basis and not on honorarium basis. It is
submitted that the evidence of the Principal of
the respondent-School before the Tribunal would
exposit that the appellant-Teacher was appointed
as a regular Teacher in the year 1996 for
teaching Gujarati and Hindi. It is submitted that
the respondent authorities have not disputed the
tenure of service and appointment of the
appellant-Teacher from July, 1996 till he was
orally terminated in the year 2004 i.e. on
31.03.2004. He has also referred to the findings
recorded by the Tribunal and has submitted that
on the doctrine of quantum meruit since the
appellant-Teacher has actually worked for all
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1064/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
these years regularly, he is entitled to regular
salary, as per the norms of the State Government,
and as precisely directed by the Tribunal. Thus,
it is urged that the impugned judgement and order
passed by the learned Single Judge may be quashed
and set aside.
4. In response to the aforesaid submissions,
learned Senior Advocate Mr.G.M.Joshi appearing
for the respondents has contended that the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single
Judge, whereby the order of the Tribunal was set
aside, does not warrant any interference, as the
appellant-Teacher has miserably failed to
establish his appointment. It is submitted by him
that the appellant-Teacher was engaged by the
respondents on honorarium basis, depending upon
the exigencies of work and not by way of any
regular appointment. He has further submitted
that contrary to the findings of the Tribunal,
the appellant-Teacher was not engaged
continuously but only intermittently, depending
upon the requirement of work. He has also pointed
out the evidence of the appellant-Teacher and has
submitted that he could not produce any
advertisement, pursuant to which he was allegedly
appointed and hence, it is urged that the present
appeal deserves no consideration.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1064/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
5. We have heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties.
6. From the record as well as from the judgment
and order of the Tribunal dated 07.09.2009 passed
in Application No.74 of 2004, and further as
recorded by the learned Single Judge, it stands
established that the appellant-Teacher was
appointed only on occasional basis and was paid
fixed wages. The Tribunal has also recorded in
paragraph No.5 of the impugned judgment that for
the period from July, 1996 to July 1997, the
appellant-Teacher was paid fixed wages, which are
as under: -
Sr. Period Fixed Wages
No. paid per month
(In Rs.)
1 July 1996 to July 1997 400/-
2 August 1997 to August 1998 500/-
3 September 1998 to May 2001 750/-
4 June 2001 to March 2004 900/-
7. It is the case of the appellant-Teacher that
he was orally terminated on 31.03.2004 by the
respondent-School. He has further asserted that
he was appointed pursuant to an advertisement
however, in his cross-examination before the
Tribunal, he admitted that he does not possess
any copy of such advertisement. It is also
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1064/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
pertinent to note that no appointment order has
been produced by the appellant-Teacher to
establish that he was regularly appointed or duly
selected by the respondent-School.
8. The entire premise of Application No.74 of
2004 before the Tribunal rests on surmises and
conjectures. It is not in dispute that a teacher
in a private school can be appointed only after
following the provisions of Section 35 of the
Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 (for short
"the Act, 1972"), which has also been referred to
by the learned Single Judge.
9. The learned Single Judge has considered the
nature of the appellant-Teacher's engagement as
well as the wages paid to him, whenever he was
engaged by the school.
10. Before us also, no document has been produced
to demonstrate that the appellant-Teacher was
appointed pursuant to a regular selection process
envisaged under Section 35 of the Act, 1972, or
through any legally recognized mode of
appointment.
11. The appellant-Teacher has emphasized on the
deposition of Shri M.D.Sayied, who was working as
Principal of the respondent-School during the
relevant period i.e. from 14.07.1995 to
31.10.1998. However, a bare perusal of the said
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1064/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
evidence makes it clear that Shri M.D.Sayied has
in fact, admitted that the appellant-Teacher was
never appointed through a regular mode of
appointment, but was engaged as a Gujarati
Teacher on an honorarium basis, as and when the
work so required. His testimony, therefore,
cannot come to the aid of the appellant-Teacher
in establishing that he held a regular
appointment.
12. The learned Single Judge, after considering
all these aspects, has held as under: -
"7.10 Considering the same, when the Tribunal has
found that the appointment of the respondent No.1 is
not in consonance with Section 35 of the Act and,
therefore, there is no question to grant any amount
towards salary by directing the petitioner to pay
such salary to the respondent No.1. The principles
of " quantum meruit" is not applicable in the facts
of the present case, whereby it is specifically held
by the Tribunal on one hand that the appointment is
not in accordance with law then there is no question
to grant any such benefit of all the salaries and
allowances for period 05.07.1996 to 28.02.2004,
which is otherwise not permissible in law and the
respondent No.1 is not entitled to receive the same
as he is neither regular employee nor contractual
employee nor he was selected by following necessary
procedure pursuant to any public advertisement.
7.11 In view of the above discussion, I am of the
opinion that the Tribunal has committed serious
jurisdictional error in granting the benefits to the
respondent No.1 by way of impugned order, which is
not in consonance with law and also the said order
is against the settled principle of law and,
therefore, I found that this is a fit case where the
Court should interfere in the finding given by the
learned Tribunal, as such findings are found
improper, illegal and bad in the eyes of law. Hence,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1064/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
the present petition is required to be allowed by
granting the prayers in terms of paragraph 5A of the
present petition by quashing and setting aside the
impugned order dated 07.09.2009 passed in
Application No.74 of 2004 by the Gujarat Secondary
Education Tribunal whereby the petitioner is
directed to pay the salaries and allowances in
accordance with law.
8. In view of the above, the present petition is
allowed in terms of paragraph 5(A) of the present
petition.
9. The impugned order dated 07.09.2009 passed in
Application No.74 of 2004 by the Gujarat Secondary
Education Tribunal is hereby set aside. Rule is made
absolute accordingly."
13. Under the circumstances and in light of the
aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion
that the learned Single Judge has precisely set
aside the judgment and order passed by the
Tribunal, which had directed the respondent-
School to pay the full salary of an Assistant
Teacher with allowances for the period from
05.07.1996 to 28.02.2004. The Tribunal has
clearly erred in issuing such directions in the
absence of any cogent evidence to establish that
the appellant-Teacher was continuously engaged on
a regular basis during the said period.
14. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is
hereby rejected. The amount deposited before the
Tribunal shall be disbursed to the respondent-
School, after due verification.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1064/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
15. As a sequel, the connected Civil Application
also stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
NVMEWADA AND MAHESH/15
