BALVANTRAI NAGINDAS PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE issuing Rule, this matter was ordered to be heard with Special Civil Application No. 6772/1997. However, today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that this petition may also be disposed of in terms of the order dated 21. 02. 2000 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6772/1997, which reads as under; "heard the learned advocates. Rule expedited.

(2.) THE petition has been preferred by the association of the Ahmedabad Secondary and Higher Secondary school Managements. The petitioner challenges the government Resolution dated 21st May, 1994. By the said resolution, the Government has decided, inter alia, that the Secondary School Teachers appointed on or after 16th april, 1994; if rendered surplus, shall not be given the protection as a `surplus teacher' and shall be discharged after making payment of compensation in accordance with law. However, in respect of the teachers appointed on or before 15th April, 1994; if rendered surplus, be given the protection of a `surplus teacher' i. e. , such surplus teachers shall be accommodated in the schools where there is a vacancy for such teacher and till then, the government should continue to pay the salary. It is further decided that the Management should accept the `surplus teacher' allocated to such Management and if they fail to do so, they shall be liable to make good the salary of such teachers till they are allocated to one or the other school. It is contended that the aforesaid resolution is contrary to the Government Resolution dated 11th January, 1983 which was passed in view of the matters pending before this Court and had the approval of this Court also. The gravamen of the grievance expressed by the petitioner is that the Management is not permitted to select and appoint teachers of their choice in accordance with Section 35 of the Gujarat Secondary education Act, 1972.

(3.) THE petition is contested by the respondents i. e. , the State Government and the teachers concerned. It is submitted that since the Government has to bear the financial burden of the salaries of such teachers, the government cannot be asked to do so and pay the idle wages to the surplus teachers. The Secondary Schools receiving the grant from the Government shall accommodate such teachers who are otherwise qualified and were at the relevant time appointed after following the due procedure in consonance with the law. The concerned teachers have contended that they have been rendered surplus on account of no fault of them and they should not be made to sit idle and as and when they are allocated to some School, they have a right to render service and impart education in such School. It is further contended that recently on 20th October, 1999, the Government has entered into another settlement with the School Managements and the teachers and has modified the policy of allocation of `surplus teachers' to various schools.