IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.
Harshidaben Vasudevbhai Nayak – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & other – Respondents
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7819 of 2020 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2020 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5066 of 2020, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5655 of 2020, CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 2 of 2020, CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 3 of 2020, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5890 of 2020, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6586 of 2020, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7541 of 2020, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7839 of 2020, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8296 of 2020, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8380 of 2020, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8313 of 2020, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9298 of 2020, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16042 of 2020
Decided on : 19-02-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 311 read with Articles 14, 16 and 21- RCI Act 1992 - Section 2(n)(v) - Employment and Service matter - Scheme - Circulars - Rehabilitation Professional as special teachers - petitioners are working as Special Teachers who are rendering their services at various schools at primary level assisting and teaching the differently abled students belonging to different categories, like visually challenged, physically challenged and mentally impaired category and are serving since about 2010 onwards. All these teachers have been specifically trained for assisting and teaching the students of a particular category since have obtained diploma from recognized institutions as well as their RCI certificate.
Finding of the court: Court is of the clear opinion that wisdom of experts cannot be substituted by views of Court, particularly, when such policy is found to be reasonable and not arbitrary in any form. On the contrary, a close perusal of the scheme as a whole would clearly indicate that with a view to take more stringent steps to nourish and take care of such disabled students, the authorities have made an endeavour to provide full proof scheme keeping in view the paramount importance of the students who are suffering from any disability to see that they may be put into the main education stream as a part of the Inclusive Education. The overall view of the scheme would lead to a situation whereby the challenge made by the petitioners is not possible to be accepted by this Court. None of the contentions as such have appealed to the Court to accept the stand of the petitioners.
Result: Petitions are dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. This group of petitions filed under Article 311 read with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India challenging the Circulars dated 28.1.2020 as well as 14.2.2020 issued by the respondent State on multiple contentions. All these petitions since basically arising out of a similar grievance, learned advocates appearing for respective sides have requested to decide these petitions conjointly. Hence, the Court has taken up the hearing and upon further request, Special Civil Application No.5655 of 2020 and 5066 of 2020 have been basically argued by learned advocates. Hence, the facts are taken from Special Civil Application No.5655 of 2020.
2. The petitioners are working as Special Teachers who are rendering their services at various schools at primary level assisting and teaching the differently abled students belonging to different categories, like visually challenged, physically challenged and mentally impaired category and are serving since about 2010 onwards. All these teachers have been specifically trained for assisting and teaching the students of a particular category since have obtained diploma from recognized institutions as well as their RCI certificate.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent Government initially launched a Scheme in the name of Integrated Education for Disabled Children (IEDC) which was in force till 31.3.2009. However, on account of some reasons, the Central Government thereafter discontinued the said scheme by taking a stand that the functions under IEDC were already covered by Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA) and in place of IEDC, another scheme came to be launched by the Central Government in the name of Integrated Education for Disabled at Secondary Stage (IEDSS) covering the special children studying in Standards 9, 10, 11 and 12.
4. Noticing the fact of discrimination in the State of Gujarat by the petitioners and bias in comparison to regular teachers, in Suo Moto proceedings, cognizance was taken by Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat on its judicial side and one Special Civil Application No.33 of 2005 and allied matters came to be disposed of vide judgment and order dated 22.3.2013 and has issued several directions to the State authorities with a view to curb and put an end to discrimination between the regular teachers and the special teachers and further to ensure that specially disabled children are given adequate guidance and special care that they need. The case of the petitioners is that few of the primary directions, including that the petitioners alike special teachers should be regularized in service and paid all financial benefits in consonance with regular teachers and that ratio of 1:5, i.e. one teacher for maximum five special students should be maintained in each class of the State. Relying upon the said decision, since the State authorities were not implementing the said directions, some of the special teachers approached this Court again by way of Special Civil Application No.13704 of 2014 and allied matters praying for rights which have been accrued by the directions issued in the earlier proceedings and vide judgment and order dated 16.1.2017, the High Court directed the State authorities to give all benefits that are being given to the regular teachers including that of regularization in the pay scale.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that the directions were still not complied by the State authorities, hence some of the special teachers had preferred contempt applications, which according to the petitioners are pending for its adjudication before this High Court. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite specific directions having been given in earlier two orders, the State authorities have not obeyed the same and on the contrary, as if it is a retaliation, a circular came to be issued by the State Government on 14.2.2020, practically taking away the task of teaching from these special teachers and instead, the special teachers have been
Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi reported in (2006)10 SCC 337
Ashif Hamid v. State of J. & K. (AIR 1989 SC 1899)
State of Orissa and others v. Gopinath Dash and Others (2005) 13 SCC 495
State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. K. Shyam Sunder and others reported (2011)8 SCC 737
The University of Mysore & Anr v. C.D. Govinda Rao & Anr.
Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. v. Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 1277)
Km. Neelima Misra v. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal & Ors.
The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors.
Dr. Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors.
State of H.P. & Ors. v. H.P. Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.