IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that actions affecting employment rights must comply with natural justice, requiring a hearing before adverse decisions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Nimit Y. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3- State. Though served, none appears for and on behalf of the respondent no.4.

2. By way of the present petition, petitioner herein is aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 dated 07.01.2004, duly produced at Annexure-H, Pg-37, whereby, by the impugned action, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 withheld the benefit of last pay protection and reduced the basic pay of the petitioner from Rs.8500/- to Rs.6500/- and issued recovery for the services rendered by the petitioner herein in a non-granted secondary school for a period from 05.12.1996 to 31.12.1999.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition reads thus:

3.1. The petitioner herein was appointed after following due procedure of selection and approval of the respondent – District Education Officer (DEO) as provided under Section 35 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, w.e.f. 01.01.2000 in the respondent no.4 school.

3.2. Prior to the joining of the respondent no.4 school, the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary section in I.P. Mission High School on 15.09.1984 and had worked there till 17.07.1986. Due to reduction of classes, the petitioner was declared surplus and was absorbed in Kadod High School in higher secondary section and thereafter, joined as Assistant Teacher in higher secondary section in R.S.M. Punawala Sarvajanik Experimental High School, Surat. Accordingly, the petitioner had put the services as an Assistant Teacher in higher secondary section from 15.09.1984 to 04.12.1996. The petitioner herein is deprived of the 1st higher grade pay scale on completion of 9 years of service, w.e.f. 27.12.1995 in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 and on that basis, his basis pay was fixed at Rs.7700/-.

3.3. The petitioner herein joined as Head Master on 05.12.1996 in Jeevanbharti Pravuti Vidyalaya, Surat, which was being run and managed by the respondent no.4 management, viz. Jeevanbharti Mandal, Surat, after following due procedure of selection. The said school is a non-granted school, but all the provisions of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, Regulations and Grant-in-Aid Code Rules are made applicable. The Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board had also issued a Circular on 20.01.2005 directing all the District Education Officers that registered non-granted school should have complied all the provisions of the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act and Regulations framed there-under, regarding qualification of the teacher and for making a prescribed salary as per Regulation No. 24 prescribed by the State of Gujarat and accordingly, in the said non-granted school, the petitioner herein was paid a regular pay scale which is prescribed for the post of Head Master, i.e. Rs.6500-10500 from month to month by the respondent no.4 management.

3.4. The petitioner thereafter joined R.D. Ghael Jeevanbharti Madhyamik Vidyalaya on the post of Head Master, which was being managed by the respondent no.4 herein, after obtaining NOC, advertisement, interview, selection procedure as per Section 35 of the Act and upon following due procedure and approval from the DEO, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Head Master and he joined the duty on 01.01.2000 as Head Master and accordingly he was paid the regular monthly salary alongwith giving the pay protection of basic pay of Rs.7700/- for rendering the earlier services from month to month.

3.5. The respondent school submitted the proposal for pay fixation for the post of Head Master to the respondent – DEO on 28.11.2001. The respondent- DEO submitted the proposal of pay fixation of the petitioner as Head Master to the respondent no.2 – Commissioner of Schools, for approval. The said proposal came to be declined by the respondent no.3 by the