SOLANKI BHARATKUMAR KHUSHALBHAI Vs. DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Munshaw and Mr.Joshi waive service of rule for the respective respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The petitioner was selected as a primary teacher on 8.10.1992 in Ikbalgadh Ashram Shala. The State Government had passed a resolution dated 23rd August, 1973, consequent on the representation to Government that teachers appointed in Ashram Schools run by voluntary agencies have no security of service, as a result of which they leave the institutions as soon as they secure better employment, on account of which the work in Ashram Schools suffer. It was, therefore, decided by the said Resolution that such teachers employed in the Ashram Schools and who possess the prescribed qualifications and experience for appointment as primary teachers of the District Education Committees under the Panchayats and who are within the prescribed age limit on the day of their recruitment in the service of Ashram Schools were allowed to have their lien in the services of the respective District Education Committees under the Panchayats and the services of such teachers are counted in the services of the District Education Committees from the date of selection by the Staff Selection Committee of the respective District Panchayats. The said G.R. is at Annexure `A'. It is also provided in the said G.R. that those of the teachers who will be selected by the District Education Committee for absorption in their services will normally continue in the Ashram Schools and will not be allowed to join the schools of the District Education Committees unless either the Ashram Schools are closed or they have put in at least five years' services in the Ashram Schools. Therefore, as per the said G.R., even if a teacher is selected for appointment in the schools of the District Education Committees unless he completes five years' service in such Ashram Schools, where he was serving, he will not be able to join the services of the District Education Committees. In other words, he will have to complete five years' service in the Ashram Schools and after completing such five years' service, such teacher was found eligible to be appointed, provided he is selected by the District Education Committee for appointment in their schools, in which case the teacher will be entitled to have lien for the services which he had rendered in the Ashram Schools.

(3.) The respondent No.2 school also passed a Resolution, which is at Annexure `B', page 18, by which the said school decided to give benefit of lien to those who are serving in their Ashram Shalas. The respondent No.2-School also gave no objection by their letter dated 25.6.1998 in the matter of giving benefit of lien in case the petitioner is absorbed as a teacher under the District Education Committee. On the basis of the advertisement which was published in newspaper on 25th June, 1998, which is annexed at page 22, the petitioner applied for appointment under the District Education Committee. It is required to be noted that so far as selection procedure is concerned, the said selection is purely on objective criterion, and on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidate in the S.S.C. and P.T.C., the merit list is prepared and there is no further scope of any written examination or even for oral examination except to verify the genuine mark-sheets from such candidates, who are placed on the merit list by virtue of the marks they obtained in the S.S.C. and P.T.C. examinations and also in order to find out whether they are physically fit or not. The basis for calling such candidates for personal interview is also mentioned under the Rules, known as "Recruitment / Selection Rules of Vidya Sahayaks". The aforesaid Rules are produced at page 69 by the petitioner with his affidavit-in-rejoinder, wherein it is clearly mentioned at page 71 that the reason for calling candidates for personal interview is only to find out whether he is physically fit or not and, therefore, as stated earlier, on the basis of the marks obtained in the examinations, merit list of those candidates, who are found eligible for appointment, is prepared, subject to further verification regarding their physique, etc., in the oral interview. On the basis of the marks obtained by the petitioner in his S.S.C. and P.T.C. examinations, his name was included in the merit list and the petitioner thereafter appeared in the personal interview also on 13.9.1998 and, therafter, he was expecting his appointment order. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has also sent all necessary papers of lien etc., to the Department. Thereafter, by an order dated 22nd January, 1999, which is at Annexure `D', the District Primary Education Officer has passed an order of granting lien to six teachers, which includes the name of the petitioner also at serial No.6. The aforesaid order, therefore, clearly shows that the petitioner was selected by the District Primary Education Officer and benefit of lien was also given to him by the aforesaid letter. The only thing which was required to be done further was giving him posting orders on the basis of his selection. Therafter, by an order dated 22.9.2000, the Director of Primary Education, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar informed the District Primary Education Officer that out of the six teachers, on whose behalf the proposal was sent, the lien can be given to two persons, one Rajput Bhurabhai Pirabhai, and the present petitioner. Accordingly, the Director had approved the proposal of the District Primary Education Officer for giving lien so far as the present petitioner as well as Rajput Bhurabhai Pirabhai are concerned. On the basis of the said order, the petitioner was awaiting his posting order. However, it seems that for a considerable time, no posting order was given to him by the District Primary Education Officer. The petitioner also made some representations in this connection from time to time. In the meanwhile, fresh advertisement was published in the newspaper, which is produced at Annexure `G' page 39 in the compilation. The petitioner, therefore, again applied for such appointment on the basis of the said advertisement dated 8.8.2000 as he was apprehending that he may not be given the appointment order on the basis of his earlier selection. The petitioner was again selected and he was given appointment order dated 17th January, 2001 produced at page 44. It is required to be noted that so far as the said appointment is concerned, it is based on the application of the petitioner as a direct recruit and not as an employee of a particular Ashram Shala. The petitioner, however, subsequently informed the Department that he is accepting the appointment order without prejudice to his rights and contentions. However, as per the averments in the petition at page 7 of the petition, the petitioner has accepted the aforesaid appointment order dated 17th January, 2001 without prejudice to any of his rights, claims and contentions for such absorption in view of the lien granted to him on the basis of his service rendered in the Ashram School of respondent No.2. Accordingly, the petitioner has accepted the said appointment order dated 17.1.2001 and he has joined the service as Vidhya Sahayak.