JILLA SHIKSHAN SAMITI Vs. HASMUKHRAI RATILAL JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the original defendant No.1 against whom as well as against respondent No.2 herein - original defendant No.2, respondent No.1 original plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 44 of 1992 for declaration and permanent injunction.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that he was appointed as primary teacher in the year 1965 and in the month of June, 1971, when he was on leave for three weeks, he was ordered to be sent for training but when he returned from leave, he was asked to proceed to Adhyapan Mandir, Limdi where the plaintiff was not allowed to resume the duty. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is neither suspended, removed or discharged from service and yet he was not allowed to resume the duty. The plaintiff further averred that he was not departmentally proceeded against and still treated as terminated. He therefore sought declaration that he be treated to have been in continuous service.

(3.) The suit of the plaintiff was resisted by defendant No.1 stating that the suit of the plaintiff was time barred. That the suit was also not maintainable as the plaintiff has not served statutory notice under Section 320 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). That the Court is not competent to entertain the suit of the plaintiff. That the plaintiff was in fact not on leave for three weeks but the plaintiff was on duty till 14.6.1971 and by order dated 15.6.1971, that he was asked to go for training but he refused to go for training. It is further stated that the plaintiff was appointed purely on ad -hoc basis and the condition was already incorporated at the time of his appointment that the plaintiff could be relieved from service without notice. It was also made clear to the plaintiff at the time of his appointment that the plaintiff would be required to go for training and disobedience of such order for training would result into relieving him from service. Inspite of the above condition, the plaintiff did not go for training and acted in defiance of the order dated 17.7.1970 for training It is also stated that those employees who do not comply with the order of training were not entitled to continue in service and since the plaintiff did not go for training, ad.hoc services of the plaintiff were put an end to under Rule 9(A)(2) of the Rules of the Government of Gujarat for such employees. Thus, no arbitrary or illegal action was taken against the plaintiff but the plaintiff had made himself disentitled to continue in the service of the defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 has raised various other contentions in the written statement.