RAMESH HIRASINGH Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

(2.) The grievance of the present petitioners is that DEO, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad is not deciding the case of the petitioners though hearing was completed. Initially, the DEO, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad has passed an order on 26.9.2004 and not decided the issue whether the petitioners are surplus teacher / peon or not and liability of the salary has been fasten upon the school authority. Thereafter, the petitioners approached to this Court by way of SCA No.1710 of 2005 and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an order on 13.4.2005 directing the DEO, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad to re-consider the issue of declaring the petitioners as surplus after hearing the petitioners afresh and permitting them to produce such material as may be available with them in support of their cases. This Court has also directed to the DEO, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad to decide the issue within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of that order. This Court has also observed that if the petitioners make out appropriate case for declaring them as surplus, the Court is sure that DEO, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad will consider such material in accordance with law. Thereafter, on 21.4.2005, a detailed representation has been made to the DEO, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, the matter was heard on 2.5.2005 by DEO, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad. The decision has been taken by DEO, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad on 22.6.2005 against the petitioners but, petitioners having the right to approach Commissioner within a period of 30 days. Accordingly, the Commissioner has passed an order on 25.7.2005 to approach the Tribunal. Accordingly, the petitioners filed application No.178, 218 to 220 of 2005 before the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad the Tribunal has examined the matter and passed order on 4.2.2006. The relevant observations are in Para.7, which is quoted as under :

(3.) Learned advocate, Mr.Vakil, submitted that matter was heard by the DEO, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad but, certain documents demanded by the petitioners were not supplied to the petitioners by the DEO, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad. He also submitted that till date, though hearing was over on 7.9.2006, no decision has been taken by the DEO, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad and communicated to the petitioners.