DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION COMMITTEE Vs. JOGIDAN JIVABHAI GADHVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal, under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of original defendant No. 3 against whom as also against other defendants respondent No. 1-original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 846/1984 seeking declaration and permanent injunction.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as under : The plaintiff was appointed as Primary Teacher in Primary School run by defendant No. 4 and there was one condition in his appointment that he shall be required to undergo training. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 4 ordered the plaintiff to undergo training against which the plaintiff made representation to grant exemption from undergoing the training. The plaintiff has further averred in the plaint that in the month of June 1971, the plaintiff was again asked to go for training but, since the plaintiff was suffering sickness, he was not in a position to go for training and applied for exemption from training which was not accepted by the Principal of the School. The plaintiff has further averred that because of his sickness he was entitled to exemption from undergoing the training. The plaintiff has alleged that the action of defendant No. 4 of not granting exemption was not bonafide and the same was against the rules and regulations. The plaintiff has further alleged that the defendant No. 4 then passedorder dated 16th July 1971 directing the plaintiff to go for training where it was provided that in default of the plaintiff not going for training his services shall stand terminated automatically. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff then was not permitted to report for training and despite the fact that there was no order of termination, the plaintiff was treated to have been terminated automatically. Such action on the part of the defendants No. 3 and 4 is illegal, unconstitutional and malafide and the same is required to be quashed and set aside. The plaintiff has therefore prayed to declare the said action as illegal and unconstitutional and to treat the plaintiff to have continued in service.

(3.) The suit of the plaintiff was resisted by defendant No.1 and 3. The defendant No.1 is the State of Gujarat and defendant No. 3 is District Education Committee. The suit was resisted on the ground that the plaintiff was required to undergo training compulsorily and for two times, orders were passed for training of the plaintiff but the plaintiff did not comply with such orders and therefore, the plaintiff had no right to continue in service as Primary Teacher. After the order dated 16th July 1971 was passed the plaintiff did not report for training and thus lost his right in service. It is further stated by the defendants that the action of the defendants of not permitting the plaintiff to join the duty was not punitive but it was the plaintiff who did not go for training thus lost his right to continue in service and therefore as per the order dated 16thJuly 1971 the plaintiff was relieved from service. The defendants further stated that in passing such order, relieving the plaintiff from service the defendant could not have been said to have acted illegally or against the contitutional provisions.