Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12260/1994 17/ 17 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12260 of 1994
=========================================================
R
P GOSWAMI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MANAGING
TRISTEE & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
AD OZA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR MUKUND M DESAI for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 3,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 26/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
By way of this petition the
petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned action of
the respondents to treat the petitioner as untrained teacher to
quash the judgment of the Tribunal to the extent of not considering
the petitioner as a trained teacher and not granting such pay scale
and further to quash and set aside the action of Education
Department of not treating the teacher like that of the petitioner
appointed after 1.1.1977 being trained teachers.
The brief facts of the case are
as under:
2.1 The petitioner was appointed in
respondent school. As per the say of the petitioner the petitioner
was paying less salary but was obtaining signature on the receipt
showing full salary. On 19.8.1992, the respondent school raised an
explanation of the petitioner that why she should not be considered
as untrained teacher. The petitioner had replied the same, which was
not accepted by the respondent.
2.2 Being aggrieved by the said
behavior, the petitioner filed an application bearing no. 213 of
1992 before the Tribunal and the same was allowed, but the specific
direction for regular payment was not given and therefore the
petitioner had filed Review application bearing no. 21 of 1994,
which was allowed by the Tribunal. According to the petitioner, the
respondents had misinterpreted the provisions of law and judgment
of this Court reported in 25(1) GLR Page 65 and the relevant
instructions, guidelines issued by the government on that basis the
said reports treating the petitioner as untrained and assessing the
salary in the lower time scale of untrained teachers. Hence this
petition.
Heard learned advocates for the
respective parties and perused the documents on record.
The issue involved in this
petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court (Coram:
A.R.Dave, R.M.DOshit, J.R.Vora,J.,J.J.) in the case of SUDIP
Tripathi and Anr. V/s. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in
(2007)1 GLR 359 wherein this Court had
observed as under :-
CAV
JUDGMENT (Per
: HON’BLE Ms.
JUSTICE R.M DOSHIT)
These two petitions, preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, raise a common question whether a post
graduate degree in Education [B.Ed.] can be said to be a valid
qualification for appointment as Vidya Sahayak [Primary School
Teacher] in the panchayat service of the State of Gujarat.
The
primary education in the State of Gujarat is governed by the Bombay
Primary Education Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as, the
Act of 1947 ]. The State Government has, under its various
orders, entrusted the function of primary education to the Primary
Education Committees under the control of the District Panchayats /
Municipal Corporations / Municipalities. The appointment of teachers
in the schools run by the District Primary Education Committees is
governed by the Gujarat Panchayat Service [Recruitment of Primary
Teachers] Rules, 1970 [hereinafter referred to as, the
Rules ] made by the State Government in exercise of the
powers conferred by Section 323 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961.
Clause (iii) of Rule 2 of the Rules defines the words, ‘Qualified
candidates’ to mean, candidates who have passed any one
or more of the qualifying examinations. The ‘qualifying
examination’ is defined in clause (iv) thereof to mean, an
examination specified in Schedule-I . Schedule-I to the
Rules reads as under :-
Secondary
School Certificate Examination of the Gujarat Secondary School
Certificate Board together with a certificate of Primary Teachers’
Certificate Examination;
Primary
School Certificate Examination together with a certificate of
Primary Teacher’s Certificate Examination.
Lok
Shala Certificate Examination together with a certificate of Primary
Teacher’s Certificate Examination.
Thus,
passing of Primary Teachers’ Certificate [PTC] Examination is a
prerequisite for appointment as Primary School Teacher in Panchayat
Service.
Under
Government Resolution dated 11th
June, 1998, with a view to resolving unemployment problem of PTC
passed candidates in the State, the State Government had introduced
Vidya Sahayak Scheme. By the said Resolution the State Government had
resolved to fill up 20,000 vacancies under Vidya Sahayak Scheme with
effect from that year. The said Resolution provided, inter
alia, that
appointment as Vidya Sahayak be made from amongst the candidates
possessing qualifications of (i) SSC, PTC; (ii) Trained Graduates;
and (iii) SSC, CP Ed. (Certificate
in Physical Education).
Though the Resolution is not explicit, we are informed that the
candidate concerned was required to possess any one of the
aforementioned qualifications. Clause-8 of the said Resolution
provided that after two years of satisfactory service, the Vidya
Sahayaks would be absorbed in service of the concerned Primary
Education Committee on the posts of primary teachers falling vacant
on account of superannuation. The remaining Vidya Sahayaks would be
absorbed as Primary Teachers in the regular pay scale of primary
teacher after completion of five years’ service as Vidya Sahayak.
Since the issuance of the said Resolution, pursuant to the decision
of the Division Bench of this Court dated 21st June, 2000 rendered in
Special Civil Application No. 4005 of 1987, the State Government has
passed a Resolution on 1st
August, 2000 declaring that the trained Graduate [i.e.
Graduate B.Ed.] shall
not be a valid qualification for appointment as Vidya Sahayak. It is
this Resolution dated 1st
August, 2000 which is the subject matter of challenge in the above
Special Civil Application No. 8075 of
2001.
The
petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 8075 of 2001 are one
Sudip Tripathi, a trained Graduate and one-Gujarat Talimy Snatak Hit
Rakshak Samiti which, according to the averments made in the
petition, is an organization advancing the cause of trained-graduates
[B.Ed.] for their appointment as trained teacher/vidya sahayak in
primary schools and that the majority of the trained graduates
{B.Ed.} in the State of Gujarat are its members. It is the claim of
the petitioners that until the year 1977, B.Ed. Was considered to be
the valid qualification for appointment as Primary Teacher and
Primary Teachers possessing such qualification were considered
Trained Primary Teachers. By Circular dated 1st July, 1978
such trained graduates were exempted from passing PTC examination.
Even this Court in several of its judgments has held that the
qualification of B.Ed. Shall be a valid qualification for appointment
as Primary Teacher and that such Primary Teachers were entitled to
the pay-scale of a Trained Primary Teacher. One of the said judgments
i.e., judgment dated 20th June, 1996 passed in the matter
of Shreyas Education Trust v. Adyaru Dadubhai @ Sanat Kumar
Ratilal [Special Civil
Application No. 1729 of 1995 : Decided by R.K Abichandani, J.]
was confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1048
of 1996 on 22nd
July, 1998. Nevertheless,
another Division Bench [Coram
: B.C Patel, J.,
as he then was
& P.B
Majmudar, J.];
unaware of the above referred Order dated 22nd
July, 1998 made on Letters Patent Appeal No. 1048 of 1996, took a
contrary view by its judgment dated 21st
June, 2000 passed in Special Civil Application No. 4005 of 1987. This
time, the Division Bench held that the primary teaching is a special
skill and requires a special training. The training acquired in B.Ed.
Course is not equivalent to the training imparted in PTC course.
The two are not comparable and one cannot
be replaced for the other. In other words, a degree in Education
[B.Ed.]
cannot be said to be a valid qualification for appointment as a
Primary Teacher. The impugned
Resolution dated 1st
August, 2000 came to be issued in compliance with the above referred
judgment dated 21st
June, 2000. The petitioners, therefore, prayed that in view of the
earlier Division Bench order dated 22nd
July, 1998, the later judgment dated 21st June, 2000 be held to be
per incurium
and in view of the two contrary views, the matter be referred to the
larger Bench.
The matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge [Coram
: C.K Buch, J.].
The learned Single Judge, by his Order dated 8th
November, 2001 referred the matter to the larger Bench as prayed for
by the petitioners in the following terms.
whether
a person holding the degree of Graduate B.Ed. Is a trained teacher or
not and can be appointed as Vidya Sahayak or a primary teacher .
The
said reference came up for hearing before the Full Bench {Coram
: Bhawani Singh,
C.J.,
and Messr. Justice J.N Bhatt & K.R Vyas,
as they were
then].
The Full Bench, by its judgment and order dated 3rd
December, 2003, with the consensus of the learned advocates, answered
the Reference as under :-
A
person holding the degree of Graduate B.Ed., is a trained teacher
for standards VI & VII but is not a trained teacher for standards
I to V, with regard to his/her appointment as a primary teacher
Vidhya Sahayak in a Primary School.
The
said judgment was challenged before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 838 of 2006 by a group of
appellants possessing PTC qualification. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court by its Order dated 6th
January, 2006
set-aside
the above referred decision dated
3rd
October, 2003 of the Full Bench and remanded the matter to this
Court. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that, ..The decision of
the Full Bench will therefore have to be reconsidered after hearing
the appellants as well as the NCTE as well as the parties who are
before it.
Pursuant to the above order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the above Special Civil Application No. 8075 of 2001
stood revived. The petitioners have impleaded the National Council
for Teachers’ Education [hereinafter referred to as, the
Council ]and
the appellants before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as party respondents. The matter has come up before us
for reconsideration, as directed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
Since the issuance of the aforesaid Resolution dated 1st
August, 2000 and pending Special Civil Application No. 8075 of 2001,
the Council has, in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Clause
(d) (i) of Sub-section (2) of Section 32 read with Section 12 (d) of
the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 [hereinafter
referred to as the Act of 1993 ]
made the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination
of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools)
Regulations, 2001 {hereinafter referred to as, the
Regulations }.
Regulations 2 & 3 of the Regulations read as under :-
[These
Regulations shall be applicable for recruitment of teachers in all
formal schools established, run or aided or recognized by Central or
State Government and other authorities for imparting education at
pre-school, nursery followed by first two years in formal school,
elementary (primary and upper primary school), secondary and senior
secondary stages.]
(i)
The qualifications for recruitment of teachers in educational
institutions mentioned in Section 2 above shall be as given in the
First and Second Schedules to these Regulations. The qualifications
prescribed in the First Schedule shall apply for recruitment of
teachers for teaching school subjects. The qualifications prescribed
in the Second Schedule shall apply for recruitment of teachers for
Physical Education.
(ii) For
recruitment of teachers for co-curricular activities such as work
experience, art education, etc., existing qualifications or such
other qualifications as may be prescribed by the concerned government
shall apply.
(iii)
For promotion of teachers from one level to the next level of
teaching, minimum qualification as given in the Schedules for the
concerned level would be required.
Clause-III
of the First Schedule to the Regulations reads as under :-
III
Elementary
(a)
Primary
(b)Upper
Primary (Middle School Section)
(i)
Senior Secondary School certificate or Intermediate or its
equivalent; and
(ii)
Diploma or certificate in basic teachers’ training of a duration
of not less than two years.
OR
Bachelor
of Elementary Education {B.El. Ed.}
(i)
Senior Secondary School certificate or Intermediate or its
equivalent; and
(ii)
Diploma or certificate in elementary teachers training of a
duration of not less than two yearsOR
Bachelor
of Elementary Education {B.El. Ed.}OR
Graduate
with Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) or its equivalent.
IV
Secondary/High
SchoolGraduate
with Bachelor of Education {B.Ed.} or its equivalentOR
Four
years’ integrated B.Sc., B.Ed. Or an equivalent course.
Note
:
For
appointment of teachers for primary classes, basic teachers’
training programme of 2 years’ duration is required, B.Ed. is not a
substitute for basic teachers’ training programme.
Some
of the States are having basic teachers training course of one year
duration only, while in some other State students passing secondary
level examination are admitted to primary level teacher training
courses. Such States may, by 2005, conduct basic teachers’
training programmes of a duration of not less than two years with
admission being open to Senior Secondary/Intermediate pass
candidates. In the meantime candidates who have undergone basic
teachers’ training course of one year duration or were admitted to
such training programmes after passing secondary level examination
only may be given employment in the concerned States only.
Thus,
under the Regulations, for the purpose of recruitment of teachers,the
elementary education has been divided into two sections viz. Primary
& Upper-Primary [middle school section]. For the purpose
of recruitment to primary section, a candidate is required to possess
basic teachers’ training [equivalent to primary teachers’
certificate examination]. Whereas, for upper primary section
(middle school section), Post-Graduate Degree in Education
(B.Ed.) also is considered to be a valid qualification. Standards I
to V are treated as primary education; while standards VI & VII
are considered as upper primary/middle school section. While deciding
the reference, the Full Bench, as recorded hereinabove, answered the
reference adinvitem in consonance with the Regulations.
The appellants before the Supreme Court have preferred the above
referred Special Civil Application No. 4332 of 2006, a substantive
petition seeking declaration that the PTC is the only valid
qualification for appointment as Vidya Sahayak. They have challenged
the Government Resolution dated 5th
June, 2004 seemingly passed in consonance with the Regulations and
the above referred decision of the Full Bench in so far as the
graduate B.Ed. has been made a valid qualification for appointment as
Vidya Sahayak.
Mr. Sinha has submitted that the reference made by the learned
Single Judge by Order dated 8th
November, 2001 was wholly uncalled for. He has submitted that the
judgment dated 21st
June, 2000 of the Division Bench related to a primary school teacher
appointed in a non-government, recognized, aided primary school
governed by Schedule-F to the Primary Education Rules, 1951. Under
the provisions made under the said Schedule-F, such primary school
teachers are required to possess a PTC [Primary
Teachers’ Certificate].
The question was whether teachers who did not possess PTC but had a
higher qualification of post-graduate degree in education [B.Ed.] can
be said to be a trained primary teacher, and whether such teachers
were entitled to higher pay-scale as a trained primary teacher. The
Special Civil Application No. 8075 of 2001 did not involve such an
issue. He has submitted that the judgment dated 21st
June, 2000 passed by the Division Bench in Special Civil Application
No. 4005 of 1987 was entirely on different subject matter. The
reference made to the larger Bench, therefore, was not competent. He
has further submitted that even the Full Bench erred in answering the
reference by consent of the learned advocates. The answer given by
the Full Bench was not a considered
decision of the Full Bench. He has submitted that as held in the
matter of Satishchandra
Bhailalbhai Shah & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
[1984 (1) GLR 655] and in the matter of Vidya Vikas Primary School
[Special
Civil Application No. 2903 of 1988
: Decided on 6th
February, 1996 :: Coram-N.N
Mathur, J.}
and the order in the matter of Shreyas
Education Trust vs. Adyaru Dadubhai @ Sanat Kumar Ratilal
{Special Civil Application No. 1729 of 1995 : Decided on 20th
June, 1996 :: Coram-R.K
Abichandani, J.];
confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1048 of 1996, the
qualification of post-graduate
degree in Education {B.Ed.} is a qualification higher than that of
PTC. A person possessing such higher qualification cannot be
considered ineligible for the purpose of appointment as Primary
School Teacher and for that matter as Vidya Sahayak. He has submitted
that the persons possessing higher qualification of post graduate
B.Ed. are, therefore, entitled to be appointed as Vidya Sahayak. The
action of the State Government in non-suiting such persons for
appointment as Vidya Sahayak is erroneous, contrary to the aforesaid
judgments and is not conducive to the larger interest of primary
education.
Mr. Oza has contested the petition. He has supported the above
referred judgment dated 21st
June, 2000 passed by the Division Bench in Special Civil Application
No. 4005 of 1987. He has also submitted that in the State of Gujarat
there is one primary education from Standard I to Standard VII and
there is no bifurcation of primary education as suggested by the
Council. In absence of segregation of primary education in standards
I to VI and in standards VI & VII, the Regulations cannot be
effectively implemented. In such circumstances, there is no scope for
appointment of persons possessing post graduate
degree in Education as Primary School Teacher or as Vidya Sahayak.
Mr. Jani has appeared for the Council. He has submitted that Section
12 of the Act of 1993 empowers the Council to lay down guidelines in
respect of minimum qualification for a person to be employed as a
teacher in Schools or recognized institutions. The Regulations are,
therefore, in the nature of guidelines and are binding to the schools
and the recognized institutions to that extent.
Learned Advocate General Mr. Trivedi has relied upon the Bombay
Primary Education {Gujarat
Amendment}
Act, 2003 [Gujarat
Act No.3 of 2003].
He has submitted that by the said
amendment, the Act of 1947 has been amended to include the definition
of the word Vidya Sahayak
and to make provisions in connection with recruitment and service
conditions of the Vidya Sahayaks. The provisions made in connection
with the recruitment of Vidya Sahayaks from time to time have now
been amended and compiled in the Government Resolution dated 5th
June, 2004; as modified by Government Resolutions dated 22nd
July, 2004; 29th
July, 2004; 3rd
September, 2004 and 3rd
February, 2005. He has submitted that by experience, it has been
learnt that the teachers possessing post graduate degree in Education
[B.Ed.] are better suited for teaching standards VI & VII
students. It is, therefore, desirable that such teachers are
recruited for teaching students in Standards VI & VII.
We
are
of the view that the submissions made by Mr. Sinha run contrary to
the averments made and contentions raised in the petition. As
recorded hereinabove, the petitioners have specifically referred to
the above referred judgments/orders and have asked for a reference to
the larger Bench. It was the petitioners who invited reference to a
larger Bench and it was the learned advocates representing the
parties who invited the order of
the Full Bench on reference by consensus. It lies ill in the mouth of
Mr. Sinha to submit that the learned Single Judge erred in making
reference to the larger Bench by Order dated 8th
November, 2001 and that the Full Bench erred in deciding the
reference by consensus by its judgment dated 3rd
October, 2003. Besides, we have our own doubts whether the
petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 8075 of 2001 have locus
standi
to bring the petition in the present nature. It is not demonstrated
before us that the petitioner no.2 is a recognized organization or
has a legal status to sue. The petitioner no.1 is an individual. He
has not preferred the petition in a
representative capacity nor has he obtained permission to sue in
representative capacity. At the best, the petitioner no.1 can seek
relief for himself. No such relief is claimed in the said petition.
Nor it is the case of the petitioner no. 1 that he has sought
employment as Vidya Sahayak or that he has been denied such
appointment for want of requisite qualification.
In our view, this is one more avoidable litigation and multifarious
proceedings caused on account of governmental indecisiveness and the
lack of a firm policy decision. The primary education has been made a
testing ground for various policies framed not necessarily in the
interest of education or administration. Frequent changes, at times
conflicting, tend to undermine the quality of education low as it
is. As recorded hereinabove, the recruitment of
teachers in primary schools under the control of the District Primary
Education Committees is governed by the Rules made in that behalf.
The said statutory provisions require that the person appointed as
Pimary School Teacher shall possess a Primary Teachers’ Certificate
[PTC]. Thus, it is apparent that all along, under the Rules, the PTC
has been considered to be the only valid qualification for
appointment as Primary School Teacher. The Vidya Sahayak
though sounds a separate cadre is essentially a cadre leading to
absorption as a Primary School Teacher by sheer passage of time.
Therefore, a person who is not eligible for appointment as primary
school teacher cannot be eligible for appointment as Vidya Sahayak
either. In our opinion, the Division Bench in Special Civil
Application No. 4005 of 1987 had correctly considered the requirement
for appointment of PTC candidates as primary school teachers and that
should govern the field. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court has,
in its order dated 6th January, 2006 passed in Civil
Appeal No. 383 of 2006 observed that, ..It is also made
clear that, in any event, only PTC trained teachers
will be appointed for Classes I to V.
In view of the above observation also, it is now the law of the land
that only PTC trained teachers can be considered to be eligible for
appointment as teachers in primary section of elementary education
i.e., classes I to V.
The
impugned
Resolution dated 1st
August, 2000 had been issued by the State Government in due
compliance with the above referred judgment dated 20th
June, 2000 passed by the Division Bench in Special Civil Application
No. 4005 of 1987. By the said Resolution, the eligibility for
appointment of Vidya Sahayak had been modified to non-suit the
trained graduates i.e., the persons possessing post-graduate B.Ed.
qualification. The Resolution dated 12th
February, 2004 has been passed pursuant to the judgment dated 3rd
December, 2003 passed by the Full Bench in Special Civil Application
No. 8075 of 2001. By the said Resolution, the State Government has
made provision for recruitment of Vidya Sahayaks in Standards VI &
VII. It provides that such Vidya Sahayaks shall be trained graduates.
Such trained graduates, on appointment, shall impart education in
Standards VI & VII and also in Classes I to V. The PTC primary
teachers may also impart education in Standards VI & VII. The
trained graduates
shall take bridge training course as recommended by the Council.
Since the said Resolution, the aforesaid eligibility criteria are
compiled in the impugned
Resolution dated 5th
June, 2004. The said Resolution has been modified by the other
Resolutions referred to hereinabove. However, as the said
modifications are not relevant for the purpose of the present
petitions, they are not dealt with. It is apparent that the above
referred Resolutions dated 12th
February, 2004 and 5th
June, 2004 have been passed in contravention of the Rules as well as
in contravention of the Regulations and also the judgment of the Full
Bench pursuant to which the said Resolutions came
to be passed. The Rules, as discussed hereinabove above, make PTC the
only valid qualification for appointment as Primary Teacher. The Full
Bench while answering the reference categorically held that a person
possessing qualification of graduate B.Ed. is not a trained teacher
for Standards I to V with regard to his/her appointment as a primary
teacher/Vidya Sahayak in a primary school. Even the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has now, by its aforesaid Order dated 6th
January, 2006, held that, the only PTC trained
teachers will be appointed for Classes I to V.
Nevertheless, the said Resolutions provide for appointment of
graduate B.Ed. teachers as Vidya Sahayak for Classes I to V also.
Similarly, the PTC teachers are called upon to take classes in
Standard VI & VII also. In other words, the Regulations and the
decision of the Full Bench have been completely contravened.
As to standard VI &
VII classes, under the Regulations made by the Council, the teachers
at the middle school level i.e., in Standards VI & VII may
possess a primary teachers’ training or in the alternative they may
also be Bachelor of Education [B.Ed.]. But such teachers have to take
basic training in primary teachers’ training course. The State
Government has, as a policy decision, decided that the teachers in
Classes VI & VII of primary schools shall have the qualification
of B.Ed. The State Government has, however, neither segregated
Classes VI & VII education nor has issued guidelines how the said
policy decision shall be implemented where there is one primary
education comprising standards I to VII.
As
discussed hereinabove, as of now, the primary education in the State
of Gujarat comprises Standards I to VII. The statutory Recruitment
Rules provide for appointment of persons possessing Primary Teachers’
Training Certificate as primary school teachers. Though the Council
has proposed that for Standards VI & VII [the upper primary
school] the persons possessing B.Ed. qualification also may be
appointed as teachers, in absence of a separate upper primary/middle
section and in absence of separate set of rules governing the
recruitment of teachers in such upper primary or middle schools, the
said guidelines cannot be implemented in its true spirit. We have
already demonstrated that the Government Resolutions seemingly passed
in compliance with the Regulations and the Full Bench judgment in
fact contravene the Regulations as well as the judgment of the Full
Bench and now also the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Although it may be in the larger interest of the education that the
guidelines issued by the Council, a body of experts, be carried out
in its true spirit, unless the State Government takes a policy
decision to segregate the middle school from the primary school and
makes appropriate recruitment rules governing appointment of teachers
in such upper primary or middle school, the said guidelines cannot be
implemented by passing a mere resolution in contravention of the
statutory rules.
In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the primary
teachers’ training of two years’ duration [as
suggested by the Council]
shall be the only valid qualification for appointment of teachers in
primary schools : be it an appointment in regular pay scale or be it
an appointment as Vidya Sahayak. The State Government may, however,
consider appointment of candidates possessing post graduate B.Ed.
degree for Standards VI & VII of the primary schools but only if
and after the State Government segregates Standards VI & VII from
Classes I to V by appropriate legislation and requisite guidelines.
We answer the reference accordingly.
In view the above discussion, Special Civil
Application No. 8075 of 2001 is dismissed with cost. Rule is
discharged. Special Civil Application No. 4332 of 2006 is
allowed to the above extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The
parties shall bear their own costs.
Since
the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by
the aforesaid judgment, for the reasons set out in the said judgment
the present petition also required to be dismissed. Accordingly
the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to
costs.
[K.S.Jhaveri,J.]
*Himansu
Top