JUDGMENT :

N.V.ANJARIA, J.

Heard learned advocate Mr. Yatin Oza assisted by learned advocate Ms. Srushti Thula for the appellants, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sahil Trivedi for the respondent State and its authorities and learned advocate Mr. Hemant Munshaw for the respondent No.3, at length.

2. The appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal are the original petitioner Nos. 7 and 8. The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 26th March, 2019 of learned single Judge whereby the petition came to be disposed of with certain observations.

2.1 In the Special Civil Application, what was prayed by the appellants petitioners was to set aside order dated 16th October, 2003 passed by the District Primary Education Officer. It was further prayed to direct the respondent District Primary Education officer to place the petitioners as Vidhyasahayaks in a regular pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 after completion of two years of their service as Vidhyasahayaks. It was also prayed to reinstate the petitioners on the post of Vidhyasahayaks with full back wages and with all service benefits, as if their services were never terminated.

3. Noticing the basic facts, the petitioners were appointed as Vidhyasahayaks in fixed pay of Rs. 2500/-. They had put in more than two years. It is the case that one Rameshbhai Patel who was Assistant Teacher, impressed upon the petitioners that he had relation with the Education Minister and could obtain for the petitioners recommendation for transfer. He collected applications from the petitioners for transfer. It was stated that thereafter, the Minister called the petitioners in the chamber on a particular day. The said Rameshbhai Patel prepared false recommendation letters purported to have written by the Education Minister. The petitioners accordingly faced action by the District Primary Education Officer.

3.1 The District Primary Education Officer passed order of termination against the petitioners on 16th October, 2003. It was on the ground that the petitioners had submitted application for transfer without obtaining prior permission of the said officer. It was the case of the petitioners that without following any procedure and without giving any show cause notice and without giving any reasonable opportunity to defend, the order dated 16th October, 2003 terminating their services came to be passed and they were removed from the post of Vidhyasahayaks. It is on the premise of such basic facts that the aforesaid prayers were made in the petition.

3.2 By filling affidavit-in-reply, respondent No.3, District Primary Education officer contested the petition stating that the petitioners were appointed on fixed term basis for five years on a fixed monthly pay as per the policy of the State Government. Their services were not transferable, it was stated. The applications for transfer of the petitioners Vidhyasahayaks were not liable to be accepted much less forwarded to the higher authorities. Despite that certain documents in the nature of transfer orders of the petitioners were received under the purported signature of Under Secretary to the State Government, such letters were fabricated and bogus. It was due to this that the action was required to be taken against the petitioners, it was contended.

3.3 The respondent authorities took stand that the petitioners had committed fraudulent practice which was serious and grave. It was stated that the petitioners were heard on 28th August, 2003 and they gave their statement on 22nd September, 2003. It was stated on oath that “after hearing the present petitioners and as the serious misconduct, irregularity and fraud were found to be proved, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order terminating the petitioners from services of Vidhyasahayaks on 16th October, 2003.” It was further said that in view of involvement of the petitioners in serious case of fraud and since the criminal complaints were also lodged against them, after sending notice and hearing the pe