HAJI MUSA ISMAIL Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting question of law has been raised in the present petition by the petitioner society. The petitioner is running an educational institution in the name and style of Pariej High School at village Pariej, District : Bharuch, registered under the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and recognised by the Government for the purpose of grant-in-aid. According to the petitioner, the school is a minority educational institution established and administered by a minority based on religion. Necessary certificate has also been granted in favour of the petitioner bearing No. SEB/Minority /B/10/6825/7003 by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board, Gandhinagar.

(2.) One Mohammadbhai Daudbhai Patel - third respondent herein -was appointed as Principal of the School by the petitioner society on 15/06/1973. He attained the age of 58 years in September, 1989. It was the case of the petitioner that since the third respondent was physically fit and mentally alert and as he was discharging duties efficiently, diligently, sincerely and to the utmost satisfaction of the students as well as the School management, the petitioner decided to grant extension for a further period of two years. Since the School was a minority institution, certain provisions of the Act were not applicable to the petitioner by virtue of Sec. 40-A of the Act. Likewise, certain provisions of the provisions of the Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Regulations") were also not applicable to the petitioner (vide Regulation 43). The provisions of the Grantin- Aid Code were, therefore, pressed into service by the petitioner and an application was made to the Chairman, Secondary Education Board, Gandhinagar - Annexure "A" on 12/01/1988 that in the interest of the education as also of the students, the petitioner had resolved to extend the services of the third respondent for two years by passing unanimous resolution. It was stated that the school was a minority institution and, therefore, it was exempted from the provisions of Regulation 36(1). It was also mentioned that the third respondent was physically fit and necessary certificate would be produced as and when required by the respondent authorities. The first respondent - District Education Officer - vide his communication, Annexure "B" dated 10/02/1988 informed the President of the Society that nothing could be done on the application of the petitioner since there was no provision for continuing the Head Master after he reached the age of superannuation. Once again, a similar application was made and once again it came to be rejected by the respondent authorities. Against that action, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

(3.) Mr. A. J. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent authorities have not applied their minds to the relevant provisions of the Act and the regulations and the provisions of Grant-in-Aid Code and have committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record in rejecting the application and the prayer made by the petitioner. Hence, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside.