PARSHOTTAM KACHARABHAI PATEL Vs. PRINCIPAL ACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocate, Mr.N.S.Joshi, appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned AGP, Mr.Dabhi, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

(2.) In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Gujarat High Secondary Service Tribunal in Application No.296/2002, 153/2003, 84/2003, 203/2004 and 70/2005 being a final order after review application dated 14.7.2006.

(3.) Learned Advocate, Mr.Joshi, appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that in July,1991, permission was granted to the Ankur High School in Science Stream for Gujarati medium. The petitioner is declared surplus teacher, therefore, DEO has directed to absorb the petitioner in April,1992 in Ankur High School. The school management was not ready to accept the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner approached to the Tribunal and obtained protection, remained continued with Ankur High School upto September,2004. According to learned advocate, Mr.Joshi, petitioner was actually working with Ankur High School for the period April,1992 to 1997. The petitioner was a surplus teacher within the ratio of three teachers for each subject because petitioner was absorbed, at that occasion one Mr.Adresa teacher was working with Ankur High School and thereafter, petitioner was absorbed and 3rd teacher was Mr.B..Mehta appointed by Ankur High School. He submitted that beyond three teacher for one subject, which outside the ratio and whenever question of transfer has arisen, it only relate to the teacher, who is working outside the ratio but, teacher should not have to be transferred, who is working within the ratio. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 are working out side the ratio. On 1.12.2003, Ankur High School requested to the DEO to transfer the petitioner and on the same day, transfer order of petitioner was issued by the DEO in M.K.Secondary High School, Ahmedabad and on the same day, respondent No.6 was appointed with Ankur High School. He submitted that there is some collusion between respondent Nos.5 and 6, school management and DEO which ultimately transferred the petitioner being a surplus teacher from Ankur High School to M.K.Secondary High School and at present, petitioner is working in Mehsana district. Therefore, he submitted that petitioner entitled to remain continued with Ankur High School. The order of transferring the petitioner from Ankur High School is bad, illegal and petitioner being a senior teacher in comparison to the respondent Nos.5 and 6, that aspect initially not decided by the Tribunal. In LPA, the Division Bench of this Court has directed to file review application which was filed by petitioner and Tribunal, while deciding the review application, corrected the error about seniority between the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6. Therefore, he submitted that Tribunal should not have to put end when seniority has been considered in favour of petitioner but, Tribunal should have to grant further relief on the basis of seniority of the petitioner. Therefore, Tribunal has committed gross error in rejecting the review application. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi, submitted that one teacher cannot teach in both medium and it required two separate teachers. This basic requirement is also violated by school management and DEO. Except that, no other submission is made by learned advocate, Mr.Joshi, on behalf of petitioner.