CHARUTAR VIDYA MANDAL Vs. HEIRS OF SHARADKUMAR JERAMBHAICHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Charutar Vidya Mandal, who is original respondent No.3, by invoking aids of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has questioned the validity and legality of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, passed on 9.7.1997 in Special Civil Application No.3083/84, inter-alia, contending that the original petitioner, the staff member of the appellant, was not entitled to the post of Lecturer as he had no lien upon his accepting the post of Principal, which was offered to him after undergoing the regular recruitment process. It was, therefore, contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge, is vulnerable and is required to be quashed. Alternatively, it was also submitted that in Civil Application No.1299/99, a certificate is produced as Annexure 'I' dated 22.10.1997, whereby, it is very clear that the deceased, after the discharge from the post of Principal during the period of probation, was working gainfully elsewhere and he was earning during the period of seven months. It was also contended that the deceased was also working somewhere and he was gainfully employed but no particulars are indicated or pointed out.

(2.) During the pendency of the proceedings, the original petitioner-Sharadkumar Jerambhai Chauhan expired. He died on 5.10.1995 and his widow and three other heirs were brought on the record. Initially, the deceased was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Institution of appellant-original respondent on 9.7.1973. He was thereafter, selected for the post of Principal of the said Institution and was given appointment on probation. Since his performance as Principal was not found satisfactory by the Institution, by the impugned order dated 7.1.1984 passed by the appellant-Institution, his services were brought to an end and he was discharged.

(3.) The original petitioner filed appeal before the Director of Higher Education, State of Gujarat. and challenged the termination of his services as Principal unsuccessfully. Therefore, he filed the aforesaid writ petition. The learned Single Judge, after considering the facts and circumstances and the rival submissions of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, passed the impugned judgment, whereby, the following directions were issued: