AMRUTBHAI JOITABHAI PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties when the CA No.3182/03 is taken up for hearing main Spl.C.A.No.3747/01 is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioners are the teachers of a school under the control of respondent No.4-trust. The respondent No.4 trust had applied for grant of permission for closure of the school. Initially the permission was granted as per order, dated 8.2.2000 which came to be challenged by the teachers by way of preferring Spl.C.A.No.3511/99 on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the teachers who are affected by permission for closure. This court (Coram:Kundan Singh,J) as per decision dated 19.2.2001 found that the teachers were required to be heard and since hearing was given to the petitioners of SCA no.3511/99 order was passed by this court directing the petitioners to make representation to the respondent No1-Government within a period of one month from that day and the respondent No.1-Govt was directed to decide the same within two months thereafter by speaking order. It was observed by the court that till the decision of the State Govt order dated 8.2.2000 granting permission for closure shall remain in abeyance. It appears that thereafter the Addl.Secretary of the Education Dept, State Govt heard the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that the written submissions were given copy whereof is also produced before this court as per annexure "D". It was contended, interalia, by the petitioners in the written submissions that the present closure of class is not bonafide but is malafide in as much as the same group of trustees had opened another school at a distance of 100 Mtrs and old students of the said classes are transferred to the said new school and now the present classes of the present school are proposed to be closed. It appears that the learned Secretary, Education Dept of the State Govt as per decision dated 21.3.2001 decided that the State Govt has a very limited jurisdiction and the management has right to close the classes and consequently the Secretary, Education Dept of the State Govt has continued with the earlier order dated 8.2.2000 passed by the State Govt permitting the closure of classes and it is under these circumstances the petitioners have approached this court by this petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel Mr.Ketan Dave, appearing for the petitioners, Mr.Desai, Ld.AGP for respondent State as well as Mr.M.M.Desai for respondent No.1, it appears that the Secretary, Education Dept of the State Govt while considering the matter pursuant to the directions given by this court has not properly examined the case in the light of scope and ambit of power of the State Govt permitting or refusing the closure of classes. Clause 5 which is relevant for the purpose of this petition reads as under: