Point of Law: Service Matter1 - Under Section 106 of the Schedule “F”, it is nowhere provided that if the appointment of Teacher is made in Non Granted School, then Teacher cannot be given an appointment in the granted School.

JUDGMENT :

B.N. KARIA, J.

1. As common question of law and facts are involved in these both the Letters Patent Appeals and they are arising from common Judgment and Order passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 7806 of 2014 and Special Civil Application No. 7807 of 2014 dated 16th July 2015 with the consent of Learned Counsels for the parties, these both the Letters Patent Appeal are decided by passing common Judgment.

2. The short facts of the present case may be referred as under:

2.1 The Petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 7807 of 2014 namely Minaxiben Bhulabhai Patel, who is the Respondent No.1 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 650 of 2016, was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 4th March 1985 and Petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 7806 of 2014 namely Gitaben Manilal Patel, who is the Respondent No.1 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 647 of 2016, was appointed on 4th October 1990 as Assistant Teacher in Lunawada Kelvani Mandal Sanchalit S. K. High School (Primary Section), Lunawada, District: Panchmahal (Respondent No.5) in non-granted classes in Primary Section as per the Schedule-F of the Bombay Primary Education Regulations and both of them were possessing qualifications of H.S.C., PTC, which were required as per the Rule as trained qualified. The Respondent No.5, who was also running Standard V to VII wherein Two classes were given recognition with grant facility. Thereafter, on 5th December 1985, the District Education Officer approved an appointment of the original Petitioners. Pursuant to the letter of original Respondent No.2 dated 12th February 1998 due to retirement of the employees in the granted School, whereas the original Petitioners were serving employees from non granted schools could be absorbed in granted classes on the seniority basis and their salaries may be made under the Direct Payment Scheme. On retirement of two Teachers from the granted classes, original Respondent No.5 -School sent a proposal to the District Education Officer, herein Appellant No.3, for absorption of both the Petitioners in the granted School considering their qualifications. The District Education Officer, who is the Respondent no.2 in the present Appeals, passed an order of absorbing both the Petitioners into granted School and necessary procedure for the same was completed by the School Authorities. Pursuant to the aforesaid Order dated 22th July 2004, the District Education Officer, Panchmahals approved the appointment of the Petitioners for the purpose of grant on 14th October 2004. That, however the case of the Petitioners was considered as per the Rules, one Chandrikaben Patel objected the same though she was not qualified for the Primary School as she was possessing the qualifications of B.A., B.Ed., and pursuant to the said complaint, the District Primary Education Officer straightway cancelled the earlier order without hearing the Petitioners. Thereafter, the Petitioners approached the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal, and challenged the order dated 5th December 2005. Learned Tribunal was pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the District Primary Education Officer dated 5th December 2005. However, the Tribunal allowed the prayer of the present Petitioners vide order dated 12th December 2006 for considerable period, none of the Petitioners were paid salary under the Direct Payment Scheme, and therefore, they have filed Special Civil Application No. 25427 of 2007 as well as Special Civil Application No. 25428 of 2007 respectively before this Court, which was allowed and the concerned Authorities were directed to decide the representations dated 9th June 2007 made by the Petitioners and passed reasoned order as directed by the Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Inspite of the aforesaid order, District Education Officer, vide order dated 03.04.2008, confirmed the order dated 05.12.2005. As salary was not paid to the Petitioners under the Direct Payment S