Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5927/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5927 of 2010
=========================================================
GHANSHYAMBHAI
C JOSHI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DISTRICT
EDUCATION OFFICER & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NIRAL R MEHTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 11/05/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 By
way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 08.04.2010 of respondent No.1- The District Education Officer
canceling the entire selection process for the post of the Principal
whereby the petitioner was selected at Sr. No.1 and also to direct
the respondent No.2- School to undertake entire selection process by
obtaining fresh NOC.
2.0 The
petitioner was working as a teacher in Chandrabala Modi Academy
(CBSE). Pursuant to the advertisement published by respondent No.2-
School for the post of Principal, the petitioner applied for the said
post. The petitioner was called for interview and he was selected and
placed at Sr. No.1. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner was sent
to respondent No.1- D.E.O for approval. After supplying all the
necessary documents and on inquiry, the respondent No. 1 vide letter
dated 10.11.2008 intimated to respondent No. 2 School that the
appointment of the petitioner was not made after following due
procedure and therefore, his experience in that school cannot be
counted. Inspite of the request of respondent No.2 School, the
respondent No. 1 has not given approval for the appointment of the
petitioner. Upon receipt of the Notice by the petitioner, the
respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 08.04.2010 has cancelled the
entire selection process and directed respondent No. 2 to undertake
fresh selection process after obtaining NOC from it. Hence, this
petition.
2.0
Subsequently, during the approval proceedings two orders were passed
i.e. 16.09.2009 and 30.10.2009 where the respondent No. 2- School is
called upon to consider the case of the selection list of the other
two candidates at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 where delay has been caused and
proceedings with regard to the same is not completed within the
stipulated time. The approval was rejected.
3.0 Learned
advocate for the petitioner has contended that even the Gujarat
Secondary Education Board has vide it’s Resolution dated 22.03.2006
prescribed certain norms for the purpose of considering ‘experience’
of a teaching in non-granted school. He further submitted that as per
clause of 5 of the said Resolution, the petitioner has complied with
all the required documents, i.e. appointment order, service book, pay
slips. Inspite of the fact that all the requisites are completed, the
petitioner is deprived of his right for approval.
4.0 Learned
advocate for the petitioner has further contended that on 22.10.2008,
one Shri R.C. Parikh from the office of the Respondent No.1 had
visited Chandrabala Modi Academy where petitioner is working. The
present employer of the petitioner has provided all such
information/details as has been sought by Shri Parikh vide letter
dated 22.10.2008. However, in para 6 of the communication dated
22.10.2008, it is stated that Mr. Parikh enquired about the staff
profile of the petitioner which could not be furnished as the
respondent No. 2 is a CBSE Board school and is not required to
maintain any such profile.
5.0 While
considering the case, the District Education Officer has followed the
procedure. The petitioner was selected but the approval of the
petitioner was not granted and it was rejected vide letters dated
16.09.2009 and 30.10.2009 as the staff profile is not approved. The
authority has considered the letters dated 10.11.2008, 20.01.2009 and
24.07.2009 by which, the approval was not given as the petitioner was
not appointed as per the rules at the relevant time by the respondent
No.2- School. The above decisions were not challenged by the
Chairman of respondent No.2- School. The advertisement was published
on 30.11.2007. Almost two years and four months have been passed.
Hence, the authority has rightly rejected the NOC and therefore,
application is invited. The respondent No.2 is the Management and it
has no case. The petitioner has no locus to challenge the decision of
the respondent No.1. The decision of the District Education Officer
is just and proper. No interference is called for. The petition is,
therefore summarily rejected.
(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)
niru*
Top