[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Pravinkumar Gupta vs Mohandas Principal on 19 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14809/2015 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14809 of 2015
With
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2015
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14809 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2016
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14809 of 2015
==================================================
PRAVINKUMAR GUPTA
Versus
MOHANDAS PRINCIPAL, & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance:
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. FORUM SUKHADWALA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 3,4
MR SB SHAH(1429) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR VILAS G GOSWAMY(3217) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 19/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
[1] Heard learned Party-in-Person at length. None present for the
respondents, except Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, learned AGP for
respondent Nos.3 & 4.
[2] The present writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-
"Petitioner request for High Secondary salary from the date of
joining 02-08-1985, with arrears and other facilities as per Govt.
Rules Petitioner also request for the salary release from 20-02-2006
with immediate effect of substenance of his life. Petitioner also
requests the court and the Hon'ble Judge for regularizing the P.F.
facilities which the school gives highest to the principal of the
school petitioner has served in the school for more than 20 years,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14809/2015 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
therefore, pension facilities should be provided. Petitioner request
the Court for the facilities which are applicable to higher secondary
teacher in the Govt. School. The dismissal order is wrong,
therefore, the petitioner requests the Court to set aside the
dismissal order."
[3] At the outset, it was pointed out by this Court to the party-in-
person that, though there are several orders passed by the Gujarat
Higher Secondary Schools Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad (herein
after referred to as "the Tribunal"), more particularly, orders dated
30.11.2010, 11.01.2010, 07.01.2015 etc., none of the aforesaid
orders passed by the Tribunal, have been challenged in this petition
as also there is no response received from the party-in-person in this
regard.
[4] Be that as it may, this Court have heard the submissions of the
petitioner, which is twofold that he was not given sufficient
opportunity of hearing during the course of departmental inquiry
conducted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and in absence of any approval
granted by the Commissioner of School, approved his termination
order dated 20.02.2006, therefore, the said order of termination
passed by the School Management requires to be quashed and set
aside.
[5] Per contra, learned AGP Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, would submit
that the respondent - School was non-grant-in-aid school, thereby,
question of granting any approval or any financial benefits is not
required to be considered by the respondent - State and essentially,
the dispute is between the petitioner and School Management.
[6] Having heard the party-in-person and Ms. Forum Sukhadwala,
learned AGP for the respondent - State, it appears that petitioner
was appointed as Teacher in Higher Secondary School, run by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14809/2015 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
respondent Nos.1 & 2, and his service was terminated by the School
Management vide its order dated 20.02.2006. The aforesaid
termination may be subject matter of Application No.257 of 2006
preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The petitioner,
though called upon to show the copy of the said application, but he
was not in a position to show it from the record. In absence of copy
of the aforesaid application, this Court is handicapped to say
anything more on it.
[7] Nonetheless, the observations so made by the Tribunal in para-
10 of its order dated 30.11.2010, whereby it rejected the aforesaid
application, read thus:
"10. Looking to the record, the management has issued
charge sheet, conducted the inquiry, examined the witnesses
who have been cross- examined by the applicant, inquiry
report has been prepared, second show cause notice dated
21.9.2005 was given to the applicant, approval was sought
for from the Commissioner of Higher Education by letter
dated 25.12.2005 which can be seen from the dismissal order
dated 20.2.2006. (Letter seeking approval is not traceable by the
management at present as stated by learned advocate of the
opponent-school). The school has made attempt for the same. It
was replied by the office of the Commissioner of Schools by
letter dated 16.2.2006 that the school can proceed further as
per reply dated 13.1.2006. Even otherwise there is a negative
clause in sec. 14(1)(3) of the Gujarat Higher Secondary Schools
Services Tribunal Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")
that if the Commissioner fails to convey his decision within 45 days,
the proposal of the school is deemed to have been approved and it
is nobody's case that the Commissioner has disapproved the
proposal of termination within 45 days.
In the present application there is no mention that the
termination order was passed after conducting inquiry. It is also
not mentioned that his earlier application No. 172/96 filed before
another Tribunal was dismissed for default. It is also not disclosed
that applicant's earlier Application No. 86/06 filed before another
Tribunal for the same cause has been dismissed for default. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14809/2015 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
suppression of material fact. The whole inquiry proceeding
has been placed on record by the opponents. In such
circumstances the Tribunal is not inclined to interfere with
the termination order. In the result the application is
rejected.
So far as pay scale is concerned there was litigation for the
same in past where the applicant was a party as mentioned in
paragraph 5 above which cannot be re-decided now after so many
years.
So far as legality of appointment and qualification of
opponent No.1 - Principal is concerned, it cannot be decided as
public interest litigation by this Tribunal, unless it is pointed out
that the applicant service condition has been adversely affected for
that reason. "
(emphasis supplied)
[8] The petitioner appears to have filed Review Application No.30
of 2011, which also met with the same fate wherein in para-4 of its
order dated 11.01.2012, the Tribunal has observed as under:
"4. Looking to the above submissions it is true that all the points
which are taken in the review application have been rightly
considered in the impugned judgment. Apart from the ground of
delay and suppression of material facts in his original
application, there is no substance in the review application.
There is no discovery of any new or important evidence or there is
no mistake or error in the judgment apparent on the face of record.
The applicant wants the re-appreciation of his submissions made in
the original application. There is no ground made out for review as
per Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. Hence, the review application is
rejected."
(emphasis supplied)
[9] The aforesaid judgment/order of the Tribunal would indicate
that the petitioner was not only served with the copy of the charge-
sheet but there was a full-fledge departmental inquiry conducted by
the School Management. The petitioner was allowed to cross
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14809/2015 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
examine the witnesses and upon issuance of second show-cause
notice to the petitioner, the principles of natural justice was observed
by the School Management, then after, his service was terminated on
20.02.2006.
[9.1] So far as grievance of the petitioner that there was no in-
principle approval given by the Commissioner of School (competent
authority) is concerned, the Tribunal has correctly observed in its
said judgment/order that the School Management appears to have
sent its letter dated 21.12.2005 to the Commissioner concerned for
getting its approval, which can be seen as referred in the order of
termination dated 20.02.2006, wherein it is specifically observed that
proposal was sent for approval to the Commissioner of School,
Gandhinagar. It has been observed that the Commissioner of School
vide its letter dated 16.02.2006 observed that School can proceed
further as per reply dated 13.01.2006, i.e. prior to issuance of the
termination order. Furthermore, in view of negative Clause of
Section 14(1)(3) of the Gujarat Higher Secondary Schools Services
Tribunal Act, 1983, if Commissioner fails to convey his decision
within 45 days, then proposal is deemed to have been approved.
Thus, assuming for time being that there was no approval letter of
the Commissioner not made available on record before the Tribunal,
then also, in view of above, it would not carry the case of the
petitioner further.
[10] In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Tribunal and
in absence of any challenge to the judgment and order passed by the
Tribunal, and due to foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the
submissions of the petitioner. The petition, being sans merit,
deserves to be dismissed, and is hereby dismissed. Rule is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14809/2015 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
discharged.
[11] In view of dismissal of the main matter, as a sequel, the
applications filed therein shall stand rejected. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J.)
Lalji Desai
