Veenaben Manabhai Patel vs State of Gujarat and Others

Jayant Patel, J.—Draft amendment granted.

The petitioner has preferred the petition for appropriate writ to direct the respondent to implement the resolutions at Annexure A and B regarding PTC Training and the petitioner has also prayed to direct the petitioner to put her in the pay-scale of trained teachers forthwith.

Heard Mr. Parekh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pandya, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. Nobody has appeared for respondent No. 4, though served.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides, it appears that the petitioner came to be appointed in the year 2000 in the recruitment drive for filling up of the backlog of the posts. However, there were allegations made about large number of malpractices and corruptions in the recruitment process undertaken. The respondent authority had initially taken action and the teachers, who were appointed pursuant to the recruitment, were terminated. It appears that the said action of termination was challenged before this Court in SCA No. 11317 of 2000 and others and ultimately this Court vide order dated 27.12.2000 held that the action of termination was without holding any regular inquiry as provided under Gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeals) Rule, 1964 and, therefore, the order of termination was quashed and set aside. It appears that thereafter the Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by the District Primary Education Officer, Junagadh being LPA No. 197 of 2001 and others and the same were disposed of vide order dated 8.5.2003 by recording of the declaration that the appellant would hold full-fledged regular inquiry against all the respondent teachers regarding their so-called alleged malpractices in obtaining the appointments by practising fraud. The surprising aspect is that up till now no concrete actions are taken in this regard.

Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 orally submitted that the actions were initiated, but thereafter, the writ petitions have been filed and in those proceedings, this Court has observed for holding of the inquiry in accordance with the statutory Rules. Even if the contention of Mr. Mishra is accepted, the fact remains that up till now no inquiry in accordance with relevant Rules has been held.

It appears that the petitioner earlier did approach before this Court by preferring SCA No. 20584 of 2007 and this Court relegated the petitioner to make representation and the representation has been thereafter made by the petitioner and has been decided by the District Panchayat, Dangs vide order dated 6.11.2007, in which it is recorded that the higher pay-scale has been recommended. So far as the training is concerned, as the matter is pending pursuant to the observations made in the LPA, no further decision is taken for sending the petitioner for training or for training the teachers and under these circumstances, the present petition.

It appears that if the allegation is pertaining to fraud and malpractices at the time of recruitment, it would be required for the concerned authority to take action in accordance with law. If the action is taken and ultimately the malpractices or the fraud is established, the consequential action is also required to be taken. However, if nothing has come out in such inquiry, the teachers concerned are to be considered as regularly recruited and they may consequently also be required to be sent for training. It appears that so far as the District Primary Education Officer, Junagadh is concerned respondent No. 3 herein, there is no proper pursuing of the matter even in the matter of holding of inquiry and taking appropriate action thereafter.

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, it appears that if the matter is relegated to the Director of Primary Education, who is the supervisory authority for looking after the recruitment and the primary education in the State, it would meet with the ends of justice and he, after examining the matter, may also be required to take appropriate action.

In view of the aforesaid, I find that the following directions shall meet with the ends of justice:

(a) Respondent No. 2 is directed to examine the matter, keeping in view the record of the present petition, including the observations made by this Court hereinabove and after giving opportunity of hearing to the officer concerned.

(b) If the inquiry is to be initiated and not initiated by the concerned officer, respondent No. 2 shall ensure that the same is undertaken and completed within a reasonable time. However, if respondent No. 2 is of the view that no inquiry is to be held, then regularly selected teachers shall be considered for the purpose of training and appropriate consequential order shall also be passed by him.

(c) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.

The petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations and directions. Direct service is permitted.