The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a SEBT order concerning teacher appointments. The court held the petition lacked merit, citing precedents that DEOs should grant approvals quickly but refusing to deem delayed approvals automatic.
Rule is discharged and the petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SCA/17465/2003
1/6
JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17465 of 2003
To
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17469 of 2003
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
=========================================================
DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHRISTI RUHAMA JOBINBHAI & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. MR BIPIN P SATAPARA for Respondent(s) : 1, MR RS SANJANWALA for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
=========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 04/07/2012
SCA/17465/2003
2/6
JUDGMENT
ORAL JUDGMENT
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.
2 Brief facts, as narrated in the present petition are as under:-
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
SCA/17465/20033/6
JUDGMENT
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.
SCA/17465/2003
4/6
JUDGMENT
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.
“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
SCA/17465/2003
5/6
JUDGMENT
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.
“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.
SCA/17465/2003
6/6
JUDGMENT
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.”
[K.S.JHAVERI,J]
Siddharth//
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Special Civil Application challenging the approval and signature order deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
Whether the District Education Officer's delay in granting teacher appointment approval is legally insufficient to warrant interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Special Civil Application No. 13489 of 2004 dated 28.10.2004Referred¶40
Special Civil Application No. 2606/2005 to Special Civil Application No. 2612/2005 dated 07.03.2005Referred¶40
Special Civil Application No. 7193 of 2004 with Special Civil Application No.7197 and 7204 of 2004 dated 13.10.2004Referred¶44
District Education Officer
Christi Ruhama Jobinbhai
K S Javeri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court