PALLAVIBEN PARESHKUMAR JAISWAL Vs. PRINCIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment dated 28.3.2003 passed by the Gujarat Higher Secondary Schools Services Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Application No.230 of 1994 and Application No.103 of 1995, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 and of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petition displays a chequered history of litigations undertaken by the petitioner which are adumbrated as under: -

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr.Hasurker appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently contended that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the applications. He has stated that the petitioner was regularly working as Teacher in the School since 1991, and the Management was not paying regular salary as per the Rules and Regulations of the state government. He has further contended that the Management should not have terminated the service of the petitioner in violation of the interim order of the Tribunal, and the service of the petitioner should have been regularized in view of her long service. It is contended that since the procedure for terminating a regular employee was followed in the case of the petitioner by the School, the petitioner can be said to be a regularly appointed employee. Reliance is also placed on the judgement reported in 2002(2)GLR 2357 in case of Nalinkumar A Thakker vs State of Gujarat on the issue that if an employee is given employment knowing fully well that it is contrary to the recruitment Rules, the employer is estopped from contending that entry of employee is illegal and contrary to law.