BHANUMATI PRANSHANKER SHUKLA Vs. SOMABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction, quashing and setting aside the order passed by respondent No. 1 - Secretary, Unjha Education Board, Unjha (Annexure "b" to the petition) and declaring that the decision of respondent No. 1 in closing Shri Kelvani Mandal Balmandir, Unjha, is bad in law.

(2.) MR. P. K. JANI, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that respondent no. 1 has arbitrarily closed Shri Kelvani Mandal Balmandir and the same is contrary to the Government Resolution / Circular dated 1st April,1991. Attention was drawn to the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid Government Resolution / Circular dated 1st April,1991 would be applicable only to the Aided Pre-Primary School, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that as the said Pre-primary School was getting the grant under the Nutrition Project of the Government, it can be said that the said Pre-primary School was Aided School. The aforesaid submission cannot be accepted. Merely because under some scheme of the Government, some grant was paid, it cannot be said that the Institution was an Aided Institution.

(3.) EVEN otherwise, it appears that no cogent evidence has been produced by the petitioner to prove that in fact she was an employee and/or teacher in Shri Kumar Mandir. In Para-5 of the affidavit-in reply, it is a specific case on behalf of respondent no. 1 that the petitioner has not produced any letter of appointment as pre-primary teacher in Shri Kumar Mandir. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed in Shri Kelvani Mandal Balmandir in the year 1973 and allegation that the petitioner was transferred to Shri Kelvani Mandal Balmandir in the year 1973, is incorrect. In view of the above, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. It is also required to be noted at this stage that admittedly the Institution, where the petitioner was alleged to have been serving and alleged to have been closed, is already closed since 1993. In view of the above, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner.