MANJULABEN PUNAJI GAMETI (PRINCIPAL) Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent have been filed by the Trusts and Head Masters and Teachers appointed in these Trusts run schools aggrieved by the CAV judgement dtd. 27/2/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) Before the learned Single Judge, the Trusts as well as the Head Masters and Teachers who were appointed by such Trusts had challenged the order dtd. 22/3/2016 passed by the State Government, by which order, the Committee constituted by the State observed that the Trust who had appointed the Teachers and the Head Masters had made such appointments based on fraudulent and fake orders by the State Government and therefore not only was a decision taken that the amounts be recovered from these Trusts, but also the appointments of these appellants, Head-Masters and Teachers be put to an end. The challenge to these orders before the learned Single Judge failed, hence these petitions.

(3.) Briefly stated, taking the Letters Patent Appeal No. 245 of 2021 as the lead matter which has been argued by the learned advocate Mr.A.M.Dagli for the appellant, it was the case of the appellant and the other similarly situated appellants before the learned Single Judge that the appointments of such Head-Masters and Teachers appointed in the schools run by the Trusts were in accordance with law. That it was pursuant to an advertisement published in the public newspaper that the appellants had applied. That they were qualified for such appointments and based on the approval of the District Education Officer, such grant- in-aid schools run by the Trusts appointed the appellants and they continued to serve thereunder. Based on a letter of one Shri Chirag Patel, the State Government undertook an inquiry and found that a large scale fraud had been committeed, inasmuch as, the Trusts, without obtaining an N.O.C from the respective District Education Officers and based on fake or fraudulent administrative orders / approvals of the officials of the State Government, proceeded to undertake recruitment of such appellants. The Trusts which undertook such appointments also did so by including such schools under the Direct Payment Scheme as a result of which the salaries were directly credited by the government exchequer into the account of such teachers based on the grant-in-aid extended to such Trusts. Therefore, it was the case of the State that the Trusts and such teachers who were the beneficiaries were directly concerned in their appointments as a result of complicity of certain officals of the State Government who forged or faked approval resolutions based on which such appointments were made and accordingly, not only was the amounts sought to be recovered from the Trusts but the appointments of these appellants, Teachers and Head- Masters who also were the petitioners were terminated.