JIVANJYOTI TRUST Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & 2

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India challenging decision dated 30.4.2010 of the Government (Respondent No.1) to take over management of the petitioner-School. The petitioner has also claimed the following reliefs:

(2.) Brief facts of this case are that after retirement on 21.5.2000, one Mr.P.D.Vaghela, who has worked as a Teacher in the School for 34 years, was appointed as a Trustee in the petitioner-Trust by way of resolution and change report was filed before the Charity Commissioner for his approval. Mr.Ratilal Verma who was working as Principal of the School since 15.2.1999 got elected as a Member of Parliament. In order to administer the affairs of the school, Mr.P.D.Vaghela (so called Trustee) was appointed as Manager in the School. It is further case of the petitioner that on 2.8.2008, respondent No.3-District Education Officer (DEO) sent a surplus Principal in the petitioner-School. As the Principal was not appointed from amongst the Teachers of the petitioner-School, therefore, the petitioner moved an application before the Tribunal challenging the order of DEO dated 2.8.2008. The Tribunal vide its order dated 12.9.2008 was pleased to grant stay in favour of the petitioner and observed that under Section 35(5) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, the senior most teacher of the same school was required to be given preference in the matter of appointment of Head Master. It is further case of the petitioner that after retirement of Mr.Ratilal Verma on 30.6.2006, the petitioner-School moved an application to respondent No.3 so as to appoint Principal in the School. On 2.4.2007, No Objection Certificate was issued by the District Education Officer and in pursuant to this Certificate, an advertisement was published inviting applications to fillup the post of Principal. The petitioner-School approached the respondent No.3 so as to carry out interview in the above reference. But as the surplus Principal appointed by respondent No.3 was not absorbed by the petitioner, respondent No.3 did not grant the date of interview for considerable long period. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application No.13920 of 2008 and this Court (Coram: Jayant Patel, J.) vide order dated 24.11.2008 directed respondent No.3 to take appropriate decision in the matter as early as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. In pursuant to this order, the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court could not be implemented because of the Lok Sabha elections and Code of Conduct till 2009, however, finally, date of interview was fixed on 2.7.2009.

(3.) That on 31.7.2008, DEO came to the petitioner-School on surprise visit and inquired about various registers, documents and other facilities provided by the School to the students. In the surprise visit, various deficiencies were found by the said officer and finally, a show cause notice came to be issued to the School on 2.8.2008. Apart from other irregularities, objection was also raised regarding appointment of Mr.P.D.Vaghela to manage the functioning of the School. Accordingly, in this show cause notice, it was proposed to deduct 25% grant of the school and to recommend the Commissioner to cancel 100% grant provided to the School. Petitioner filed his reply dated 13.8.2008 to the show cause notice. Finally, on 28.8.2008, respondent No.3 issued an order to deduct 25% from the maintenance grant provided to the school. Further, in pursuance to the recommendations of respondent No.3, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice and further proposed to deduct 100% maintenance grant to the petitioner-School. As a result, on 15.12.2008, the petitioner filed its reply and after considering the same, respondent No.2 vide order dated 29.5.2009 canceled 100% maintenance grant provided to the School for a period of 5 years from the date of knowledge of the DEO regarding appointment of Mr.Vaghela as Manager. Order dated 29.5.2009 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court vide Special Civil Application No.6837 of 2009, however, this petition was withdrawn to file alternative remedy available to the petitioner.