GRAM VIKAS TRUST Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioners, without prior permission, started School and thereafter applied for permission to the Gujarat Secondary Education Board. Such permission was not granted against which the petitioner preferred appeal and the appeal is also dismissed. Once again the petitioner approached the State Government for reconsideration and in spite of the pendency of the proceedings before the State Government, the petitioner, without prior permission, stated Classes of 9th Standard. It appears that the State Government directed the Board to grant registration to the School of the petitioner somewhere in 1986 and there were also other illegalities committed by the petitioner, as per the State Government, mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply, including that certain documents were concocted etc. , and the grants were withdrawn. Thereafter, the actions were taken by the District Education Officer (DEO) and ultimately the order came to be passed by DEO of withholding of the grant on account of the alleged illegalities committed by the petitioner in the matter of appointment of staff, withdrawal of the grant, etc. The petitioner by this petition, under these circumstances, has approached this Court, challenging, inter alia, the validity of Regulation 10 (2) of the Secondary Education Regulations read with Rule 95 of the Grant-in-Aid Code, declaring as unconstitutional. The petitioner has also prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 22. 6. 1989 passed by the Joint Director of Education at Annexure "f", whereby the appointments made are not regularized. The petitioner has prayed for directing the respondent State Authorities to release the salary of the employees in question in favour of the School as if the appointments are legally made.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Amit Chaudhary for Mr. Gandhi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Patel, learned AGP for the State Authorities, Mr. Hemang R. Rawal for Mr. A. D. Oza, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 - Board.

(3.) THE matter, as such, can be considered in two parts; one for challenging the validity of the regulation of the Grant-in-Aid Code and another for challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the authority for not granting approval to the appointments made by the petitioner from the date on which they were appointed.