1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2010
  6. /
  7. January

Veenaben vs President

High Court Of Gujarat|07 May, 2010
1. The petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents that the petitioner is higher secondary section employee and the jurisdiction to decide the case of the petitioner is vest with Gujarat Higher Secondary School Services Tribunal and to quash and set aside the order dated 1st April 2010.
2. The petitioner was appointed in Saurabh High School in vocational stream as Typing Instructor. The vocational stream was closed down and the petitioner was declared as surplus.
3. Thereafter the petitioner was posted in Uttar Buniyad Vidhyalaya and was permitted to join on duty from 24th June 2002.
4. Thereafter she went on maternity leave and when she came back to resume duty on completion of maternity leave, she was not permitted to resume her duties and the respondent No. 1 initiated proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that her initial appointment was not in accordance with law.
5. Thereafter her salary was stopped and she approached the Hon'ble Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal by way of application No. 284 of 2004 for getting salary and ultimately she was paid salary by the respondent No. 1.
6. Thereafter the petitioner was declared surplus and was posted at Rachna High School. The respondent No. 1 terminated the services of the petitioner against which the petitioner complained to District Education Officer who directed the school management to reinstate the petitioner in service.
7. The respondent No. 1 filed application No. 230 of 2005 before the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal against the decision of the District Education Officer and obtained stay against the petitioner. The petitioner raised preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction vested with the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal since the appointment of the petitioner is in Higher Secondary Section and the proposal ought to have sent to the Commissioner of Higher Education and not to District Education Officer. The petitioner has been posted at Rachna High School on the post of head clerk to discharge duty of Junior Clerk. The petitioner is higher secondary section employee for all purposes and therefore the proposal for dismissal is required to be sent to the Commissioner of Higher Education. Hence this petition.
8. Learned advocate for the petitioner has averred that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the facts of the petitioner's case and therefore the order is required to be quashed and set aside.
9. Learned advocate for the respondent has contended that it transpires that apprehending termination of her services without following the procedure she approached this Secondary Tribunal through Application No. 289/2004. The said application came to be disposed of vide order dated 15th June 2005 and the operative portion is extracted hereunder :
This application is disposed of with a direction that the applicant shall make a representation to the D.E.O through school for her salaries from November 2004 to March 2005. The school shall forward the representation to the D.E.O. The D.E.O shall thereafter render a decision about the salaries of the applicant after hearing the applicant and management within one month. This application is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
10. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record it is borne out that post of Clerk in the general school falls within the set up of a secondary section. Not only that but the applicant also appears to be knowing this position and therefore she herself had approached the Tribunal and obtained favourable orders and therefore she is estopped from raising this objection. The objection about the jurisdiction is therefore, bereft of merits and deserves to be rejected.
(K.S.Jhaveri,J.) mary// Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.