1. As common question of law and facts arise in both these petitions, and it is between the same parties and with a common dispute, both these petitions are heard, decided and disposed of together by this common judgement and order.
2. Special Civil Application No. 20496 of 2006 has been preferred by the petitioner - school management to quash and set aside the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the tribunal” for short) in Application No.64 of 1990 dtd.16/6/2006, by which the tribunal has directed the petitioner management to pay salary to the respondent No.1 - teacher – Ramaben Hareshkumar Pandya, which may be available as per the rules and regulations.
3. Special Civil Application No. 3878 of 2009 has been preferred by the very petitioner - school management challenging the impugned communication issued by the District Education Officer dtd.3/3/2009 / 13/3/2009 by which the petitioner management is directed to pay salary to the respondent No.1 herein which is available to the trained teacher.
4. Now, so far as the challenge to the impugned judgement and order passed the learned tribunal in Application No.64 of 1990 dtd.16/6/2006 which is subject matter of Special Civil Application No. 10496 of 2006 is concerned, as such no illegality has been committed by the learned tribunal in directing the petitioner management to pay salary to the respondent, which may be available as per the rules and regulation. Under the circumstances, no interference of this Court is required in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. However, the question as to whether the respondent No.1 – teacher is entitled to salary as a trained teacher or not, is required to be considered. By the impugned communication dtd.3/3/2009 / 13/3/2009, the District Education Officer has directed the petitioner management to pay salary to the respondent No.1 as a trained teacher. However, nothing has been discussed by the District Education Officer, as to how the respondent No.1 teacher is entitled to salary as a trained teacher. The impugned communication / order dtd. 3/3/2009 / 13/3/2009 is absolutely non-speaking and unreasoned and therefore, without entering into the merits of the matter, only on that ground the same is required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the District Education Officer to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and on merits and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner management, to pass a reasoned order.
6. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the receptive parties do not invite reasoned order while quashing and setting aside the impugned communication / Order and remanding the matter to the District Education Officer for its fresh decision and to pass reasoned and speaking order, however, have requested to make suitable observations that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits in favour of either of the parties and the District Education officer to take its own independent decision.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Special Civil Application No. 20496 of 2006 is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Special Civil Application No. 3878 of 2009 is partly allowed and the impugned communication issued by the District Education Officer dtd.3/3/2009 / 13/3/2009 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Education Officer for its fresh decision and to pass a reasoned order as to whether the respondent No.1 - teacher – Ramaben Hareshkumar Pandya is entitled to salary as a trained teacher or not and to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and on merits, and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties, and pass a reasoned and speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits in favour of either of the parties and it is ultimately for the District Education Officer to take an appropriate decision and to pass reasoned and speaking order, as stated hereinabove. The District Education Officer is directed to take the decision, as stated herienabove, within a period of three months from today. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only so far as Special Civil Application No. 3878 of 2009 is concerned.
It is reported that the petitioner management has deposited 50% of the amount, which is due and payable by the petitioner management to the respondent teacher under the communication issued by the District Education Officer dtd.3/3/2009 / 13/3/2009 and the same is lying with the Registry of this Court. Therefore, the Registry is hereby directed to invest the said amount in the Fixed Deposit and it is further observed that whoever succeeds on the basis of the order that may be passed by the District Education Officer, on remand, may apply for withdrawal of the said amount, which can be paid to the succeeding party subject to challenging the said decision of the District Education Officer by the aggrieved party.
rafik [M.R. SHAH, J.]