BHAVNABEN SATISHCHANDRA PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Kurven Desai, learned AGP appearing for the respondents no. 1 to 3, Mr. Krunal Pandya, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 4 and Mr. Jigar Patel, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 6 waive service of notice of rule. Though served none appears for respondent no. 4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

(2.) This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed with a prayer that a direction be issued that the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed as a Principal in the respondent no. 5 school pursuant to order dtd. 30/4/2016 by which she was declared as surplus on the closure of respondent no. 4 school.

(3.) Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner was working and appointed as Assistant Lecturer in the ATD sec. under respondent no. 5 run B.A. Mehta Kala Mahavidyalaya, Navsari. As a result of vacancy having occurred for the post of Principal in the respondent no. 4 school, she applied for the same and was selected and appointed vide order dtd. 21/12/2009. Unfortunately, as the students' strength went down certain colleges were compelled to shut down. The respondent no. 4 college was one such college. The petitioner was therefore declared as surplus. On being so declared as surplus, by an order dtd. 30/4/2016, the petitioner was sent for being absorbed at respondent no. 5 school at Navsari. That order was subsequently however cancelled on 19/9/2016 on the ground that there was no policy of declaring surplus teachers working in Fine Arts sec. . The order dtd. 19/9/2016 was a subject matter of challenge at the hands of the petitioner by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 17582 of 2016. By way of an interim measure the petitioner had accepted that she would continue to serve as a lecturer with the protection of pay since she was without work. She was therefore permitted to work as a lecturer in the respondent no. 5 college. The petition was therefore taken up for hearing in the year 2016 where the court noted that since the petitioner has already been absorbed as lecturer in B.A. Mehta Kala Mahavidyalaya, a decision will have to be taken with regard to applying of policy of surplusage to the Fine Arts colleges. Since the petitioner had served at the college for 26 years keeping her rights open when she was already absorbed as a lecturer the petition was disposed of with a direction to the State to take a decision with regard to the right of the petitioner. It is pursuant to these directions that the State by the impugned order dtd. 22/2/2019 has rejected the representation of the petitioner. In the interregnum, it is to be noted that the petitioner was sent for absorption at C.N. Vidyalaya Ahmedabad which in turn refused to take the services of the petitioner and thereafter it was respondent no. 6 which ultimately absorbed the petitioner in 2018 by order dtd. 8/10/2018.