LAWS(GJH)-2019-4-82

MAHENDRA KANAIYALAL SECONDARY & HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL & 1 OTHER (S) Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 OTHER (S)

Decided On April 22, 2019
Mahendra Kanaiyalal Secondary And Higher Secondary School And 1 Other (S) Appellant
V/S
State Of Gujarat And 2 Other (S) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have, inter alia, sought the arbitrary, high-handed and capricious action adopted by the respondent No.2-District Education Officer (DEO) under instructions of respondent No.1-State of Gujarat, Education Department by issuing the impugned order dated 05.08.2004 (in Special Civil Application No.4998 of 2007) directing petitioner No.1-Mahendra Kanaiyalal Secondary & Higher Secondary School ("the petitioner-School" for short) to absorb respondent No.3 as Assistant Teacher in the petitioner-School. Petitioners have also sought the impugned order dated 25.04.2006 (in Special Civil Application No.10694 of 2006) imposing 5% cut in grant of the petitioner-School.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as enumerated in the petition are that the petitioner-School is engaged in imparting education and is run by petitioner No.2-Gujarat Law Society ("the petitioner-Society" for short). The petitioner-School receives grant-in-aid from respondent No.1-State of Gujarat. The petitioner-Society is, inter alia, engaged in imparting education to the students studying in different faculties at the graduate, post-graduate level as well as at the school level from Kindergarten to Higher Second School level. For the said purpose, the petitioner-Society is running several colleges and schools and other educational institutions. The petitioner-Society is employment teaching and non-teaching staff for running their activities of imparting education in the aforesaid schools and colleges.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate Mr.S.I. Nanavati for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.3 after committing serious misconducts at N.R. Secondary & Higher Secondary School, was for some time provided teaching work at the petitioner-School. It was submitted that respondent No.3 tried to assault the Principal of the petitioner-School and misbehaved with him by shouting loudly bad words in the school premises. It was further submitted that the Principal of the petitioner-School had filed an N.C. complaint against respondent No.3 on 04.03.1998. Thereafter, respondent No.3 was issued suspension order on 05.03.1998 and respondent No.2-DEO vide order dated 11.03.1998 had also given approval to the action of issuing suspension order to respondent No.3. It was submitted that respondent No.3 had also misbehaved with the Principal of the petitioner-School and also committed serious misconduct and tried to assault him. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners therefore, submitted that it would not be proper for respondent No.2-DEO to direct the petitioner-School to absorb respondent No.3.