SMITA JOHNBHAI MASTER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners and several others were admitted to different institutions preparing students for primary teachers" training course certificate examination under five different Orders dated August 29, 1980, September 17, 1980, September 22, 1980, October 3, 1980 and October 9, 1980, issued by the Director of Education, State of Gujarat. Validity of these Orders was challenged on the ground that they were arbitrary, without authority and in flagrant violation of the guidelines issued by the State Government, in several writ petitions filed in the Gujarat High Court. At the hearing of one of these petitions, learned counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat informed the Court that the State Government had decided to withdraw and cancel the aforementioned five Orders. As a sequal admissions granted under the aforementioned Orders were withdrawn and cancelled. Some of the students, including the petitioners in this petition, questioned the action of the State Government in withdrawing and cancelling the aforementioned Orders under which they bad secured admission, in writ petitions filed in the High Court of Gujarat. Learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed these petitions. Letters patent appeals filed against the Orders of the learned Single Judge were also dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Preseat petitioners thereupon moved this Court praying for special leave to appeal against the decision of the Division Bench.

(2.) Mr. S. H. Sheth, learned counsel appeared for the petitioners, Mr. M. N. Shroff, learned counsel appeared for the respondents 1 and 2, Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee and Mr. K. H. Kaji learned counsels appeared for some of the respondents at the hearing of these petitions.

(3.) Mr. S. H. Sheth, learned counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that not only the petitioners in this petition but those who were admitted to the institutes preparing students for primary teachers' training course certificate examination have completed one year of training and have appeared at examination. To be precise, the certificate course is of two years duration and there is examination at the end of one academic year followed by final examination at the end of second academic year. The students who undoubtedly secured admission under Orders which were found to be invalid and were subsequently withdrawn were S.S.C. qualified young men and women that they paid the fees, continued to receive training and have appeared at the examination. The question is, should these youngsters he deprived of their one year of their precious life and the training imparted to them rendered nugatory merely because at the end of one year it is now found that the Orders securing admission to them have been withdrawn. Should these unwary students not guilty on their own part of any improper conduct, suffer such harsh treatment, lose a precious year of life and be denied the benefit of a course which they have completed at lease for a period of one year