JAYANTILAL KESHAVLAL JANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was employed as a teacher on 14th April 1965 by Vijaynagar Madhyamik Kelvani Mandal to serve as a teacher in the High School managed by it. In the first instance he was appointed on probation for a period of two years. Sometime in 1967 a notice was served upon him terminating his services. It gave no reasons for the proposed action. In or about August 1967 the Educational Inspector Sabarkantha District issued a direction to the Kelvani Mandal to reinstate the petitioner in service and to pay his salary. It appears that that direction was complied with by the Kelvani Mandal. On 29th March 1968 the Kelvani Mandal again served upon the petitioner order terminating his services. It appears that a copy of that order was sent by the Kelvani Mandal to the Educational Inspector Sabarkantha District as contemplated by Clause (viii) of Rule 69.9 of the Grant in aid Code. In May 1968 the Educational Inspector Sabarkantha District appears to have issued a direction to the Kelvani Mandal to reinstate the petitioner and to pay him all his salaries. Having been aggrieved by that direction the Kelvani Mandal appealed to the Director of Education on 17th August 1968. That appeal purports to have been filed under Clause (ix) of Rule 69.9 of the Grant in aid Code. The Director of Education dismissed the appeal. He also directed the Kelvani Mandal to pay to the petitioner all his salaries on or before 19th February 1969. Thereupon the Kelvani Mandal moved the State Government under Rule 126 of the Grant in aid Code for the revision of the order passed by the Director of Education and the direction issued by the Educational Inspector Sabarkantha District. On 20th June 1970 the State Government allowed that Revision Application and ordered that the petitioner shall be considered to have been discharged from service of the Kelvani Mandal with effect from 1st April 1968 and that the petitioner shall be paid compensation by the Kelvani Mandal amounting to his salary for a period of six months.

(2.) It is this order made by the State Government purporting to be in exercise of its powers under Rule 126 of the Grant in aid Code that this Special Civil Application has been directed.

(3.) The only contention which has been raised by Mr. Shah appearing for the petitioner is that under Rule 126 of the Grant-in aid Code an order can be made by the State Government only for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness or propriety of a decision recorded or an order made in an appeal. Rule 126 of the Grant in aid Code provides as follows.