ADMINISTRATOR, TEJAS VIDYALAYA ATMAJYOTI Vs. ASHA SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave to make corrections in the cause title by describing respondent No.3 as Commissioner of Midday Meals and Schools instead of Commissioner of Higher Education.

(2.) Since the management of this school as well as respondent No.1 teacher have amicably resolved their disputes, it is not necessary to set out all the facts in detail. It shall suffice to state that the school management had issued an advertisement on 09.04.1994 inviting applications for the post of teacher in Hindi / Sanskrit in the secondary section of the school. Respondent No.1 teacher who is having the qualifications of M.A. (Hindi) and M.A. (Sanskrit) and M.Ed. had applied for the post. Interviews were held on 06.05.1994. Respondent No.1 was selected by the Selection Committee and the management had issued the appointment order on 09.05.1994. Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent" or "the respondent teacher") joined duties on 25.06.1994 and since then she has been rendering her services as Assistant Teacher in the subjects of Hindi and Sanskrit.

(3.) Apprehending termination of her services, the respondent had filed Application No.164 of 1995 challenging the oral order of termination. That application was disposed of on the statement being made on behalf of the management that no termination order was passed and that whenever any action will be taken, it shall be in accordance with law. The Tribunal accordingly disposed of that application after directing that no penal order shall be passed against the applicant before the Tribunal (respondent No.1 herein) without following the procedure under Section 36 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act and Regulations thereunder. Subsequently, the services of the respondent teacher came to be terminated by order dated 07.08.1995 with effect from 05.08.1995. The order came to be challenged before the Tribunal in Application No. 371 of 1995. The Tribunal granted interim relief and therefore, the respondent continued in service during pendency of the application. The other teachers in the school were granted the benefit of fifth pay commission pay scales and therefore, the respondent filed Application No.86 of 2000 for the same benefits.