Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10902/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10902 of 2010
=========================================================
MANAGING
TRUSTEE & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
VH DESAI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 20/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Ms. Tejal Vashi appearing on behalf of petitioner
and learned AGP Ms. Jhaveri appearing on behalf of respondent
State Authority.
Learned
advocate Ms. Vashi submitted that on 5th
July 2008, appeal was preferred to Secretary of Education Department
by petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner has received Notice of Hearing
dated 17th
January 2009 from respondent No.2 Commissioner, Mid Day Meals and
School, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, wherein, hearing was fixed on 2nd
February 2009, but, on that day, it was not convenient to petitioner,
therefore, request was made by letter dated 2nd
February 2009 to adjourn the matter or hearing, but, before receiving
such letter, matter has been decided by respondent No.2 and
communicated to petitioner by letter dated 21st
March 2009 that on date of hearing, no one remained present on behalf
of petitioner and therefore, decision was taken for deduction of 25%
grant of the Institution and salary of Principal of School has been
discontinued in the Direct Payment Scheme.
Learned
advocate Ms. Vashi submitted that against the aforesaid order dated
21st
March 2009, petitioner has approached respondent Nos.1 and 2 by
letter dated 27th
March 2009 and 27th
May 2009 and also further made representation on 21st
August 2009 and 1st
September 2009, Page 31, Annexure I. In response to that, appeal
against deduction of 25% grant, hearing was fixed by Section Officer,
Education Department on 19th
September 2009 which has been communicated to petitioner by letter
dated 15th
September 2009. Thereafter, another letter dated 22nd
September 2009 communicated to petitioner, Page 34, where, hearing
was fixed on 29th
September 2009. Thereafter, order dated 29th
December 2009 is passed by respondent No.1, therefore, present
petition is filed.
Learned
advocate Ms. Vashi submitted that respondent authorities have not
given reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing adverse order
against the present petitioner regarding deduction of 25% grant and
discontinued the salary of Principal of Institution by Direct Payment
Scheme.
In
present case, order dated 26th
April 2010 is challenged which has been confirmed by respondent No.1.
In
light of these facts, the hearing was initially fixed by respondent
on 2nd
February 2009. At that occasion, one request letter has been sent to
respondent by petitioner to adjourn the matter to any other date,
which has not been received by authority, may be in time, but, matter
has been decided in absence of petitioner and thereafter, even in
appeal also, on 29th
September 2009, when representative of petitioner was remained
present and it was pointed out to Deputy Secretary that one Mr.
Purohit who has been obtained appointment illegally, for that, school
authority is liable or responsible and Principal Mr. Manubhai Raval
is already retired from service, therefore, order has been modified
by respondent to the effect that in respect of the direction issued
for Principal of the Institution, wherein, it is held that Principal
of the Institution is not held liable and therefore, whatever the
salary is available legally to Principal, the same is to be paid and
deduction of 25% grant has been maintained and confirmed by higher
authority.
In
light of this background, let petitioner may make detailed
representation to respondent No.1 Secretary, Education
Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar against the order dated 26th
April 2010 within a period of one month from the date of receiving
copy of present order.
As
and when respondent No.1 received such representation from
petitioner, it is directed to respondent No.1 to re-examine and
reconsider the representation of petitioner and also to reconsider
the question whether 25% deduction in the maintenance grant of
Institution is to be continued or not and pass appropriate reasoned
order, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner,
within a period of three months from the date of receiving such
representation from petitioner and communicate decision to petitioner
immediately.
In
view of above observation and direction, present petition is disposed
of by this Court without expressing any opinion on merits.
Direct
service is permitted.
[H.K.
RATHOD, J.]
#Dave
Top