VINABEN K DAVE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of this Special Civil Application, begs to challenge decision of respondents to terminate the services of the petitioner as assistant teacher on the ground that respondents No.1 and 2 have not approved her appointment.

(2.) The respondent No.3-school, at the relevant time, was receiving 100% grant from the Government. However, now that school has been taken over by the Government. This school is for mentally retarded students. The petitioner, after her name has been sponsored by the employment exchange, was selected for the post of assistant teacher in the respondent No.3 school and she has been given appointment vide order dated 15th June 1981, and in pursuance of this order, the petitioner has joined her services at the school on 3rd July 1981. At that time, the appointment of the petitioner was subject to approval by respondents No.1 and 2 and under the order dated 30th April 1982, that appointment has been approved. At the time of appointment, the petitioner was over-aged, but that appointment was approved by respondent No.2. The petitioner's case is that the respondent No.2 has powers to relax the age eligibility in the case of a candidate who become over-aged. It appears that the name of petitioner has been sponsored by the respondent-school for studies for mentally retarded students at "Society for the Care, Treatment and Training of Children in Need of Special Care", Bombay. She resigned from the services to join that course. Though the parties are at variance on the question whether the petitioner completed that course or not, but that question is not material for the purpose of deciding the present case and as such I am not desisting any more on this question in the judgment. The petitioner was again then given appointment after selection as assistant teacher in the school vide order dated 15th July 1983 and this appointment was also subject to condition of approval by respondent No.2. The temporary approval has been given from time to time as respondent No.2 had sent the matter for relaxation of age eligibility of the petitioner to the State Government. The State Government, under its order dated 4th June 1985 declined to approve the appointment of the petitioner and in pursuance of that order, the respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 25th June 1985 informed to the management of the Institution that as the application for giving age relaxation in respect of the appointment of petitioner has not been accepted by State Government, the services of the petitioner shall stand terminated on expiry of the term of her appointment. In the order dated 4th June 1985, the State Government has given out three grounds not to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner by giving her age relaxation. First reason has been given that the application for approval has been made after two years of appointment. The date of appointment of petitioner, in this letter has been stated to be of 1983. Another ground has been given that the appointment should have been with prior approval. Third ground which has been given is that the petitioner's educational qualification and experience cannot be considered to be exceptional which justified any relaxation to be given to her in age eligibility.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that none of the grounds given in the order aforesaid is tenable. It has next been contended that the previous appointment of the petitioner given to her under the order dated 3rd July 1981 has been approved by respondent No.2 and at that time also she was over aged. Once her appointment is approved, then certainly it goes without say that the respondent No.2 at that time, has considered it to be a case of exceptional qualifications possessed by petitioner. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the order of this Court, the petitioner is working for all these 12 years as before her services can be terminated she has been protected by this Court and now at this stage, if she is asked to go, then she will not be able to get any appointment elsewhere. By now the petitioner has already attained the age of above 50 years.