KUSUMBEN E BORASADA Vs. GOVT OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made by the petitioner to the order dated 3rd November, 1981 of respondent No. 1 whereunder it was held that the petitioner could not be treated as a protected teacher. The petitioner was appointed as craft teacher in the Web Memorial Girls High School run by the Education Board of Baroda Methodist Church, Gujarat Conference in Southern Asia, now run by Methodist Church in India, with effect from 1-8-1858. The petitioner was taking periods for Standards V to VII in the subject of craft and other subjects which were assigned to her by the Principal from time to time. The petitioner has come up with the case that she was in service in a secondary school as on 29th March, 1965. Upto 1976 the school was working in three different sections, namely, Standards I to IV, Standards V to VII and Standards VIII to X. The respondent-management is also running a school known as Hill Memorial High School since 1940. The said school had classes from Standard VIII to Standard X. The petitioner was taking the periods for Standards V to VII. It is the school which was the sister concern of Hill Memorial High School. Both the schools were run by common management. The petitioner was treated as a secondary teacher and she was given salary in the scale of Rs. 155-280 with higher start at Rs. 165.00, under the Sarela Pay Commission. Under the Desai Pay Commission she was paid salary in the scale of Rs. 260-500.

(2.) The petitioner has come up with the case that she has opted for pension. It has further been the case of the petitioner that three other teachers of the said school were treated as protected teachers, while the petitioner has been denied the said benefit. By Government Circular dated 4-6-1965, the schools which were running Standard V to VII were treated as primary section and Standards VIII to XI (now standards VIII to X) were treated as secondary section. The petitioner was in the service of secondary school as on 29th March, 1965, and as per the Government circular she is entitled to be treated as protected teacher. After 1977 there is watertight compartments of primary and secondary sections in the respondent school. It is the case of the petitioner that she, being a protected teacher, is entitled to the pay-scale of craft teacher, which is prescribed for secondary school. Under the Desai Pay Commission, recommendation was made for pay-scale of Rs. 350-600 for craft teacher. Various representations were made by the petitioner for giving her the payscale of craft teacher. Ultimately that request has been turned down by respondent No. 1 under letter dated 3-11-1981 on the ground that as on 29th March, 1965 she was not working in the school having Standard V to XI and therefore, she could not be treated as protected teacher. Hence this Special Civil Application.

(3.) The respondents filed reply affidavit and they have come up with the case that the claim of the petitioner for being treated as protected teacher is unsustainable, as she does not fall within the definition thereof as given in S.2(p) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972. The respondents have given out detailed reasons for which the petitioner could not have been treated as protected teacher. The petitioner, after filing reply by the respondent, has amended the petition.