VIPULBHAI LALJIBHAI DHAMELIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which is posed for consideration of this Court in these petitions is whether the services rendered by the petitioners as Shiksan Sahayaks in other Schools from where they resign and subsequently joined in other institutions is required to be counted for the purpose of considering five years period to grant benefit of permanency. Considering the policy of the State Government, it appears that with respect to those Shikshan Sahayaks who were compelled to leave the job as Shikshan Sahayaks due to closure of schools and/or reduction of classes and subsequently they were accommodated in other schools, in that case, services rendered by them in earlier schools is counted for the purpose of granting benefit of permanency i. e. after five years. However, with respect to those Shikshan Sahayaks like the petitioners who voluntarily resigned and subsequently joined another institution as Shikshan Sahayaks who are considered to be fresh appointee, their services are counted from the date on which they joined other institutions after resigning. Thus, there is reasonable classification between those employees / Shiskan Sahayaks who were compelled to leave the job as Shiskan Sahayaks due to reasons beyond their control like closure of schools / reduction of classes etc. and they are subsequently accommodated in other schools as Shiskan Sahayaks and those employees like the petitioners who have voluntarily resigned from earlier schools and joined other schools. Both are different class by themselves. If that is the policy of the State Government, same cannot be faulted.

(2.) MR. BUCH, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has heavily relied upon one communication dated 29. 10. 2002 addressed by the Commissioner, Mid Day Meals and Schools, Gandhinagar addressed to the Additional Secretary, Education Department. However, same can be said to only opinion / recommendations of the Commissioner who is not competent authority and ultimately it is the State Government who has to frame the policy to accept the same. It is not in dispute that said recommendations has not been accepted by the State Government. In view of above policy of the State Government and Resolutions when services rendered by the respective petitioners as Shiskan Sahayaks in earlier schools from where they resigned is not considered for the purpose of granting benefit of permanency (i. e. five years), same cannot be said to arbitrary, illegal and/or contrary to the policy of the State Government and same is in consonance with the policy of the State Government.

(3.) UNDER the circumstances, there is no substance in any of the petitions, which deserve to be dismissed and accordingly they are dismissed. Notice discharged.