Dismissed

District Education Officer v. Christi Ruhama Jobinbhai

Gujarat HC4 Jul 2012SCA/17465/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a petition challenging a Tribunal order approving respondent's appointment and imposing a maintenance grant cut. The Court found the petition lacked merits, relying on predecisions regarding teacher appointment timelines, without deciding the legality of deemed approval after two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged and petition dismissed for want of merits.

District Education Officer Vs Christi Ruhama Jobinbhai — Service and Employment | Gujarat HC (2012)

¶1

SCA/17465/2003

¶2

1/6

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17465 of 2003

¶6

¶7

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17469 of 2003

¶8

For Approval and Signature:

¶9

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

¶10

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

¶11

1^{Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the}

¶12

judgment ?

¶13

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶14

3^{Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the}

¶15

judgment ?

¶16

Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as

¶17

4 to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶18

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

¶19

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

¶20

DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER & 1 - Petitioner(s)

¶21

Versus

¶22

CHRISTI RUHAMA JOBINBHAI & 2 - Respondent(s)

¶23

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

¶24

Appearance :

¶25

GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. MR BIPIN P SATAPARA for Respondent(s) : 1, MR RS SANJANWALA for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

¶28

Date : 04/07/2012

¶29

SCA/17465/2003

¶30

2/6

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

By way of these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 04.12.2002 passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Application Nos. 423 of 2001, 422 of 2001, 107 of 2002, 396 of 2001 and 43 of 2002, whereby the Tribunal allowing the application by directing to send he approval of the appointment of the applicant within one week after receipt of the proposal by the office and by effecting five per sent grant cut in maintenance grant to the school for a period of one year.

¶34

2 Brief facts, as narrated in the present petition are as under:-

¶35

2.1 The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the Government Officers against whom the present respondent no.1 filed an application nos. 423 of 2001, 422 of 2001, 107 of 2002, 396 of 2001 and 43 of 2002 before the Hon'ble Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad. After giving an advertisement by the respondent nos. 2 and 3, interview was made on 07.07.1999 and thereafter the respondent no.1 was appointed on 08.07.1999. Immediately respondent no.1 joined the duty on 17.07.1999 and after the appointment of

¶36

SCA/17465/20033/6

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

the respondent no.1, respondent nos. 2 and 3 sent the proposal to the present petitioner for approval on 11.08.1999. However, the petitioners were refused to give approval on 01.10.1999. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the decision taken by the petitioners of not approving the proposal sent by respondent no.2 and , respondent no.1 filed an application nos. 423 of 2001, 422 of 2001, 107 of 2002, 396 of 2001 and 43 of 2002, before the Hon'ble Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad against the present petitioners and respondent nos. 2 and 3. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid order.

¶39

Learned AGP for the petitioners submitted that in view of the Government Circular of Education Department dated 06.10.1998, there was ban on the respondents management not to recruit any teachers. However, the Tribunal has wrongly allowed the application preferred by the original applicants.

¶40

Mr. Bipin P. Satapara and Mr. R. S. Sanjanwala, learned counsels for the respondents submitted that the issue involved in the petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court reported in Special Civil Application

¶41

SCA/17465/2003

¶42

4/6

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

No. 13489 of 2004 dated 28.10.2004, Special Civil Application No.2606/2005 to Special Civil Application No. 2612/2005 dated 07.03.2005 and Special Civil Application No. 7193 of 2004 with Special Civil Application No.7197 and 7204 of 2004 dated 13.10.2004.

¶45

Having heard learned counsel for both the the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the view taken by the respondent authorities is just and proper.

¶46

Para 9 of Special Civil Application No.7193 of 2004 with Special Civil Application No. 7197 and 7204 of 2004 as under:

¶47

“9. when the school management is required to obtain NOC from the DEO, the management issues advertisements in the newspapers, holds selections with a representative of the DEO on the selection committee and thereafter submits proposal to the DEO for according approval to the selection of a particular teacher, it would not be fair to expect the school management to wait for approval for months and to permit the DEO to take a long time to decide the proposal. Selection and appointment of teachers is for the purpose of ensuring that instructions are imparted to the students in the concerned schools. With heavy syllabus, if there is delay in appointment of teachers, the students are bound to suffer. Hence, the State Government or the Commissioner of Higher Education must impress

¶48

SCA/17465/2003

¶49

5/6

¶50

JUDGMENT

¶51

upon the District Education Officers to consider the proposals made by school managements for according approval to the selection of teachers within at the most a week or two and not beyond that. Under such circumstances, if the DEO makes any delay beyond two weeks, the school management would be justified in making appointment without waiting for a period beyond two weeks. Of course, in the facts of the instant case, the concerned school managements are minority institutions, but in case of other schools, the representative of the DEO is a member of the selection committee and, therefore, there would be all the more reason to require the the proposal of the school management for according approval to the selection of a candidate for the post of a teacher.

¶52

Second last and last para of Special Civil Application No.2606 of 2005 to Special Civil Application No. 2612 of 2005 reads as under:-

¶53

“In the present group of petitions also, I find that the D.E.O. had taken unduly long time and even then, no final decision was taken regarding request of the school management to grant the approval of appointment of the concerned employees. No ground has been raised with respect to qualification of the employees for holding the post in question. That decision of the Tribunal, therefore, does not call for any interference and petitions are required to be rejected.

¶54

SCA/17465/2003

¶55

6/6

¶56

JUDGMENT

¶57

The rejection of the petition would not amount to any expression on the part of this Court to hold that once 7 days period is over, as provided in circular dated 6.10.1998 and D.E.O. has not taken any decision on the application made by the school management for granting approval, the same should be deemed to have been approved. The said question is not decided in the present group of petitions and the petitions are dealt with only on the basis of peculiar facts arising in these cases.”

¶58

Hence, the present petition is any devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged.

¶59

[K.S.JHAVERI,J]

¶60

Siddharth//

District Education Officer v. Christi Ruhama Jobinbhai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

District Education Officer v. Christi Ruhama Jobinbhai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naginbhai Paragji Chauhan Vs C.B. Patel or His Successor in Office Adm. Officer

Patel Jigar Jayvadanbhai Vs State of Gujarat

Gujarat Rajya Karmachari Cooperative Bank Limited Vs State of Gujarat

District Education Officer Vs Christi Vipul Denis Eqvinbhai

District Education Officer Vs Ushaben Parsottamdas Prajapati

District Education Officer Vs Jagdishbhai Manjibhai Chauhan