CHANDRAKANT G. JALNAPURKAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.6.2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Primary Education, Gandhinagar, the order dated 25.10.2011 passed by the Director of Primary Education and the order dated 4.2.2012 passed by the Deputy Director of Primary Education, whereby his claim to treat him protected teacher and grant him benefits of protected teacher till his retirement was not accepted. The petitioner has further prayed to order the respondents to give all benefits as protected teacher with effect from 1.10.1964 till the date of his retirement on 31.10.2002. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on 1.10.1964 as part -time teacher and was asked to serve in Secondary Section of the school. It is his case that the Government issued resolution dated 4.6.1965, whereby it was decided that those teachers who were serving in secondary schools as on 29.3.1965 and continued in the same school or joined another secondary schools, their pay scale shall be protected and for those teachers who were appointed for the classes of 5, 6 and 7 after 29.3.1965, pay scale of primary teacher shall be applied. The petitioner, therefore, claimed that since classes of 5 to 9 were in one unit of secondary school and since he was informed that his appointment was in the secondary section, he was governed by the resolution dated 4.6.1965 and therefore, his pay scale as secondary teacher was required to be protected when he was appointed as full time teacher in primary section in the year 1972. It is his further case that by virtue of the resolution dated 22.11.1984 of the Education Department of the State of Gujarat, he was required to be treated as full time teacher from the date of his appointment and made entitled to the benefits of protected teacher. He has averred that in similar case of one Shri N.T. Solanki who filed Application No. 140 of 1990 before the Primary Education Tribunal, the Tribunal ordered to treat the said applicant as full time teacher from the date of his appointment by relying on the resolution dated 22.11.1984 and this Court even confirmed the said order of the Tribunal in Special Civil Application No. 5242 of 1992. The petitioner has therefore, claimed that he is entitled to the similar treatment and the orders impugned are required to be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE petition is opposed by affidavit -in -reply stating that since the petitioner joined as part -time teacher in secondary school, he was not entitled to benefits of resolution dated 4.6.1965.

(3.) LEARNED Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ronak Raval appearing for the State authorities submitted that the benefit of protected teacher was not meant for part -time teacher. Mr. Raval submitted that the petitioner wants the benefit of the resolution dated 4.6.1965 by treating him as full time teacher from the date of his appointment on the basis of the resolution dated 22.11.1984. The said resolution was only for the primary teachers who were employed as part -time primary teachers, whereas the petitioner was appointed as part -time secondary teacher. Mr. Raval submitted that the petitioner was appointed as full time primary teacher in 1972 and since then, he was working as permanent primary teacher and retired as full time primary teacher. Mr. Raval submitted that the petitioner has been given all benefits as full time primary teacher. However, the petitioner since worked as part -time teacher till he was taken as full time primary teacher, he was neither entitled to the benefit of protected teacher as per the resolution dated 4.6.1965 nor even the benefit of the resolution dated 22.11.1984 to treat him as full time primary teacher from the date of his appointment. Mr. Raval, therefore, submitted that no illegality could be said to have been committed in passing the impugned orders. He thus urged to dismiss the petition.