SABARKANTHA NEW EDUCATION TRUST Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the orders dated 14. 09. 2000 and 10. 11. 2003, whereby the respondent-authoriti es have not accorded approval to the appointment of one Shri Sanjaykumar Raval as an Assistant Teacher in the petitioner-school and held that the salaries paid to him are inadmissible.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a public trust duly registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act bearing registration No. E/912/sabarkantha. The petitioner-Trust runs and manages the Taxshila Ashramshala at Prantij and also runs other education institutions duly recognized by the education department. As the post of Assistant Teacher was vacant in Taxshila Ashram Shala, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for the said post. After following the necessary formalities, one Shri Sanjaykumar Raval was appointed as an Assistant Teacher vide appointment letter dated 24. 07. 2000. After issuing the appointment letter, the petitioner-Trust requested respondent no. 3 to grant the approval to the said appointment. However, respondent no. 3 had not given any reply to the said letter and thereafter respondent no. 3 started to consider the salaries paid to Shri Raval and accordingly paid grant to the petitioner-Trust. The respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 14. 09. 2000, inquired about the appointment of Shri Raval from respondent no. 3, whereby the respondent no. 2 opined that the age limit fixed by the Government is from 18 to 28 years, while the age of Shri Raval at the time of appointment was 28 years and four months and therefore, the approval cannot be granted. In pursuance to the said letter, the petitioner-Trust addressed a letter to respondent no. 2 informing that the appointment of Shri Raval is as per the Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner made several correspondence to respondent no. 2 and also made representation, the respondents-authorities have passed the impugned orders. Hence, this petition.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It is the case of the petitioner that though Shri Sanjaykumar Raval was getting the salaries from respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 3 had held the same to be inadmissible for the purpose of grant. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents without affording the opportunity of hearing passed the impugned order. On perusal of the record, more particularly the affidavit-in-reply, it transpires that the date of birth of Mr. Raval is 16. 02. 1972 and as per the Government Resolution dated 24. 09. 1979, the eligible age limit is prescribed as 18-28 years. Thus, in view of the said Government resolution, on the date of application and interview the said Mr. Raval was 28 years and five months. Therefore, the appointment of Mr. Raval in not accordance with law and the approval cannot be given to the appointment of Mr. Raval. Hence, in the present case, the petitioner has not observed the Rules and prescribed norms of the Government and the said appointment is without following the legal procedure. Thus, the orders passed by the respondents-authorities are just and proper and I am in complete agreement with the reasoning given by the authorities and find no reason to interfere with the same, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.