SUKLA MUKESH P Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PER Miss R.M. Doshit, J: - 1. The learned advocate Mr. Patni appearing for the petitioner seeks time with a view to filing rejoinder affidavit. The petition is the one preferred unde Art.227 of the Constitution of India. Neither the question of filing of counter affidavit nor the rejoinder affidavit should arise. Heard the learned advocates. The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher in Secondary School run and managed by the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, the respondent no.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as, "the Corporation"), challenges the judgment and order dated 28th December, 1999 passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal") in Application No.82 of 1994 preferred by the present petitioner. It appears that the petitioner and some other employees appointed in the Municipal schools run by the Corporation, preferred Applications before the Tribunal, seeking regularisation in service and payment of regular wages in accordance with the rules, from the date of their appointment. As to the contentions regarding wages, the learned Tribunal had allowed all the Applications and had directed the Corporation to make payment in accordance with the rules and to pay -up the difference of salary for past service. As to the claim made for regularisation, the learned Tribunal was of the opinion that the appointment of the applicants -Assistant Teachers; including the petitioner, was not made in accordance with the law. The prayer for regularization in service was, therefore, rejected. But, the learned Tribunal directed the respondents, "to consider the cases of applicants -Assistant Teachers with some weightage for having worked with them for such a long time as and when the regular selection of Assistant Teachers takes places in the school."

(2.) THE Corporation has contested the petition and has filed the counter -affidavit. Learned advocate Mr. Gadhia has submitted that pending applications before the Tribunal, the Corporation had published advertisement on 15th February, 1997 inviting applications for appointment of Assistant j Teachers. The petitioner too had applied for j regular selection as Assistant Teacher. He was called for interview on 17th May, 1999 and was selected. On his selection as Assistant Teacher (Science), the petitioner was posted at Eknath Rande Vidyalaya, Rajkot. It appears that the aforesaid facts were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal.

(3.) NEITHER of the said reliefs can be granted. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time i.e. in the year 1991, the petitioner was not regularly selected. For the purpose of regularisation in service, what is relevant is the date when the petitioner was selected by due procedure of law. The petitioner 's claim for regurlarisation in service retrospectively is unsustainable. Besides, though the petitioner had been regularly selected on 17th May, 1999; the impugned judgment has been delivered on 28th December, 1999, the present petition has been preferred almost four years thereafter. The delay of four years also has not been explained in the petition. The challenge to the order of Tribunal and claim for regularisation in service with retrospective effect raised after four years requires to be rejected on the grounds of delay, laches and acquiescence.