IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
PADHAR DHIRUBHAI MAVJIBHAI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15538 of 2020
Decided On : 26-08-2021
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 -Appointment - Blind candidate - Learned Advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a blind candidate and having passed MA, B.Ed. was duly selected and appointed as primary teacher in Primacy School - Petitioner was transferred to Primary School - Thereafter being declared surplus at Primary School petitioner was transferred to Jodhpur School - It is submitted that in view of enactment of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 with effect primary section was divided into primary section and upper primary section - State came out with GR giving option (“vikalp”) to those teachers who were qualified to be appointed to upper primary section to be absorbed in upper primary section and had invited such options from teachers - Petitioner had given such option for absorption as there was one vacancy in language teacher in very school, i.e. Jodhpur School and accepting option given by petitioner, by order petitioner was posted as language teacher in same school.
Finding of the court : In the reply, there is no explanation to aforesaid allegations made on oath and Court is prima facie of view that when order was passed posting the petitioner from Jodhpur School to Sarkhej Branch School respondents were aware of directions issued by this Court, despite which, order came to be passed and respondent authorities and author of order have overreached order of this Court in the present petition - In view of the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to direct Secretary, Education Department to undertake an inquiry with regard to conduct of author of order and to place report of such inquiry on record of this case - Upon such report being produced, Registry to place such report before this Court for its perusal.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with following prayers:-
(b) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26-11-2020 issued by the Resp. No.3 and received by the petitioner on 27-11-2020 as per Annexure-G;”
2. While issuing notice on 03.12.2020, this Court directed that till next date of hearing, the respondent authority shall not issue any posting order to the petitioner. It was also directed that this petition is to be heard with SCA Nos.15170 and 15411 of 2020. However, as requested by learned Advocate for the petitioner, despite the aforesaid order, this petition is taken up independently.
2.1 It appears that on 04.12.2020, posting order was issued and hence, amendment was moved, which came to be allowed by order dated 15.12.2020 and the amended prayer is as under:-
2.2 It is now reported that the petitioner has, despite stay order in favour of the petitioner, reported to the place to which the petitioner is transferred as having declared surplus.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a blind candidate and having passed MA, B.Ed. was duly selected and appointed as primary teacher in Kamijla Primacy School, Tal. Viramgam, Dist. Ahmedabad. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Ravinagar Primary School No.1, Tal. City, Dist. Ahmedabad. Thereafter being declared surplus at Ravinagar Primary School No.1, the petitioner was transferred to Jodhpur School No.2, Tal, City, Dist. Ahmedabad on 26.11.2008.
3.1 It is submitted that in view of enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 with effect from 01.04.2010, primary section was divided into primary section (consisting of standards 1 to 5) and upper primary section (consisting of standards 6 to 8). The State came out with GR dated 16.02.2012 giving option (“vikalp”) to those teachers who were qualified to be appointed to upper primary section to be absorbed in upper primary section and had invited such options from teachers. The petitioner had given such option for absorption as there was one vacancy in language teacher in the very school, i.e. Jodhpur School No.2 and accepting option given by the petitioner, by order dated 31.07.2012, the petitioner was posted as language teacher in the same school.
3.2 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that there was a clarification in the earlier GR by GR dated 07.09.2013, which would indicate that for the purpose of transfer in respect of the teachers who had given option and were absorbed in upper primary, seniority has to be considered from the date of their appointment in the school and not from the date of exercising of option. On the basis of this, the petitioner claims that the date of appointment for the petitioner in Jodhpur School No.2 to be treated as 26.11.2008 and not 31.07.2012.
3.3 The petitioner filed this petition on the ground that as there were surplus teachers and exercise for declaring surplus teacher at Jodhpur School No.2 was to take place, the petitioner apprehended that the petitioner would be considered to be junior most and other candidate, viz. Ashvin C.Patel, who entered Jodhpur School No.2 by direct recruitment on 05.09.2011 would be treated as his senior though his appointment is of 05.09.2011 whereas appointment of the petitioner is 26.11.2008 in Jodhpur School No.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that transfer of the petitioner for havi
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.