(1.) The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of challenging the legality and validity of an order passed by the Tribunal and for consequential reliefs as prayed for which reads as under :
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in respondent No.2 - school run by respondent No.1 trust which is a registered trust and appointment is made by virtue of order dated 30.6.1988 at a fix pay of Rs.400/? per month which was then increased by an order dated 30.5.1989 and subsequently, by way of an order dated 30.6.1990, the services of the petitioner came to be regularized in the pay scale of Rs.950?20?1150?EB?25?1500 as untrained teacher and as such, right from the year 1988, the petitioner was serving as a teacher with respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the services came to be regularized.
(3.) Mr.Hardik Raval, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has vehemently contended that there is a serious error committed by the Tribunal in not examining the action of the authority with a close look and such error of jurisdiction deserves to be corrected by granting the relief as prayed for. It has been submitted that the petitioner has been appointed by the respondent right from 1988, so much so that she has been regularized in the services and has been granted even a scale of trained teacher and throughout continued in the service and, therefore, now, at this stage, after these many years, it is not open for the appointing authority to contend that she is not having the PTC qualification. It has further been contended that by virtue of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust v. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel, reported in 2012 (O) GLHEL?SC 52105 , such contention is ill? founded in the mouth of the authority, who itself has appointed the petitioner and, therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside.