SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Guj) 30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SONIA GOKANI, NIRZAR S. DESAI, JJ.
Solanki Chandrikaben Ratilal – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Vinod R. Rao – Respondent
Misc. Civil Application No. 445 of 2020, Special Civil Application No. 1368 of 2020
Decided On : 06-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Amitkumar B. Parmar, Mr. Jigar D. Dave.
For the Respondent: Mr. H.S. Munshaw.

Headnote:

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Contempt case - Guilty of willful disobedience of order - Disability - Appointed as Vidhyasahayak - Please to hold and declare that opponents herein are guilty of willful disobedience of the order passed by ld. single judge of this Honourable court in special Civil Application and further be pleased to prosecute and punish the opponents for committing of Act, 1971 - Applicant is a physically handicapped person with 42% disability in her right leg, who was appointed as Vidhyasahayak in the year 2002 and was posted at Motipura Primary School, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad in the school, she served till the year 2017 - She was posted at Primary School - However, on the basis of strength of students, on 31st August, 2016, it was noticed that one post of teacher was ‘in excess’ and, therefore, she being the junior most was transferred. Accordingly, when the camp was held for transfer of surplus teachers applicant opted for Gram Primary School and since then she is serving there.

Finding of the court: It is true that while passing the order in Special Civil Application, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant positively within a period of six weeks however the learned Single Judge also issued directions to consider the case of the applicant in accordance with observation made by the Court of Commissioner in the order dated 18.01.2020. As can be seen from the affidavit-in-reply filed by Respondent No. 2 whereby the respondents have tried to justify their action by citing various provisions of Government Resolutions issued in respect of policy for transfer of Vidhya Sahayak/Assistant Primary School Teacher/Primary School Teacher - If the applicant is aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 20.04.2020, it is needless to say that the applicant may take appropriate legal recourse and avail the remedy available to her. Merely because the applicant is not transferred at a place of her choice or a place nearer to her residence, the jurisdiction of this Court under the Contempt of Court Act cannot be invoked.

Result: Application dismissed

JUDGMENT :

NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.

1. Present application under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘the Act 1971’ for short) is preferred with the following prayers:

    “(A) Your Lordships may be please to allow the present application.

(B) Your Lordships may be please to hold and declare that the opponents herein are guilty of willful disobedience of the order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the ld. single judge of this Honourable court in special Civil Application No. 1368/2020 and further be pleased to prosecute and punish the opponents for committing of contempt of court’s Act, 1971.

(C) Any other and further order as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed.”

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jigar D. Dave for the applicant, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Vrunda Shah for respondent no. 1 and learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

3. The facts, in nutshell, are as under.

3.1 The applicant is a physically handicapped person with 42% disability in her right leg, who was appointed as Vidhyasahayak in the year 2002 and was posted at Motipura Primary School, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad in the school, she served till the year 2017.

3.2 She was posted at Jantanagar Primary School, Ahmedabad, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad. However, on the basis of strength of students, on 31st August, 2016, it was noticed that one post of teacher was ‘in excess’ and, therefore, she being the junior most was transferred. Accordingly, when the camp was held for transfer of surplus teachers on 12.06.2017, the applicant opted for Gram Primary School at Chiloda, Taluka Dholka, District Ahmedabad and since then she is serving there.

3.3 In the meantime, the applicant came to know about transfer of one Mr. Dhirenbhai Patel, who was transferred in Daskroi Taluka and though the applicant is physically handicapped person such benefit was not extended to the applicant.

3.4 Accordingly, the applicant preferred an application being No. 691 of 2019 before the Court of Commissioner [For Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Court of Commissioner’)] and vide order dated 02.11.2019, the Court of Commissioner passed an order that if the Education Department or District Primary Education Officer has transferred Mr. Dhirenbhai Patel without taking into consideration various circulars in respect of transfer, in that case, why such benefits were not extended to the present applicant since there was vacancy in the Daskroi Taluka. While allowing the application, the Court of Commissioner directed the District Primary Education Officer to consider the case of the applicant for transferring her to any of the vacant post in Daskroi Taluka.

3.5 Thereafter the District Primary Education Officer, District Panchayat Education Committee, Ahmedabad preferred Review Application, under Section 81 of the Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, in the aforesaid case. In that application the Commissioner passed an order dated 18.01.2020.

3.6 In that application for Review, the main contention as can be seen from the order dated 18.01.2020 was that the respondent authorities have already cancelled the order of transfer in the case of Mr. Dhirenbhai Patel and since the order on the basis of which the applicant’s case was directed to be considered is no where in existence and hence order in respect of the applicant is required to be reviewed. It was also submitted before the Court of Commissioner that by mistake the order in respect of Mr. Dhirenbhai Patel was passed and as that mistake was cured, the applicant cannot canvass the ground of prejudicial treatment. Accordingly, after hearing the parties, the learned Court of Commissioner, vide order dated 18.01.2020 passed in Case No. 691 of 2019, rectified the order dated 02.11.2019 and held that since the District Primary Education Officer vide order dated 12.12.2019 has already cancelled the order of transfer passed in respect of Dhirenbha

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top