DHANGAURI VALJI BHATT Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT AMRELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed by the original plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 1971 filed in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Bagasara-Vadia who dismissed the suit with costs. The plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1975 in the District Court Amreli. The learned District Judge Amreli party allowed the appeal of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the partial rejection of her claim by the learned Dist- rict Judge Amreli the plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal. The original defendant respondent has filed cross-objections being aggrieved by that part of the judgment of the appellate Court by which the plain- tiffs suit was partly decreed. In order to appreciate the real controversy between the parties it is necessary to have a look at the relevant facts leading to this litigation between the parties. I will refer to the appellant as plaintiff and the respondent as defendant for the sake of convenience.

(2.) The plaintiffs case is that originally she was working in the District Local Board School as a teacher prior to coming into operation of the Panchayat Raj and after introduction of the Panchayat Raj in the State of Gujarat she was taken up as a teacher in Panchayat service and she was working as a primary school teacher in a primary school managed by the defendant Jilla Panchayat Amreli. She received an order dated 22/04/1970 from the Jilla Shikshan Samiti deputing her for training but she was not in a position to proceed for training on medical grounds. She had therefore applied for exemption from the said training with necessary medical certificates. Her case is that the Administrative Officer Jilla Shikshan Samiti Amreli by his letter dated 10-8-1970 terminated her service; that she was given no opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed against her; that the said order was null void and contrary to all the principles of natural justice. She therefore prayed for a declaration to that effect and claimed reinstatement without any break in service with full salary and allowances.

(3.) The defendant Jilla Panchayat resisted the suit and contended that the plaintiff had no cause of action; that she was an untrained teacher; that her post was not substantive; that she had no right or title to hold the post; that the termination of her services is not illegal as alleged by her; that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit and that the impugned order of termination passed by the Administrative Officer was legal and valid; that as the plaintiff had not joined the training course even though she was directed to join the same her services were rightly terminated and that the order of termination was legal valid and in accordance with the law and rules.