Date : 20/04/2012 1. As common question of law and facts arise in both these petitions, and they are 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. 20497 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.65 of 1990 dtd.16/6/2006, by which the tribunal has directed the petitioner management to pay salary to the respondent No.1 herein – Somabhai Manilal Patel in the pay scale as per the rules and regulations.
3. Special Civil Application No. 3879 of 2009 has been preferred by the very petitioner - school management challenging the subsequent decision of the District Education Officer by which on adjudication the District Education Officer has directed the petitioner management to pay salary to the respondent No.1 herein as a trained teacher.
4. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 herein – Somabhai Manilal Patel, was serving as a P.T. Teacher in the petitioner management having requisite qualification of C.P. Ed. The petitioner school management was not paying salary to him as a trained teacher and therefore, the respondent No.1 herein preferred aforesaid application before the tribunal for appropriate order directing the petitioner management to pay salary to him as a trained teacher and the learned tribunal directed the petitioner school management to pay salary to the petitioner as per rules and regulations and thereafter by the District Education Officer, directing the petitioner school management to pay salary to the respondent No.1 herein in the pay scale which was available to the trained teacher.
5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 herein - teacher was serving as a P.T. Teacher and was having requisite qualification of C.P. Ed. It is also not in dispute that for appointment as a P.T. Teacher, requisite qualification is C.P. Ed. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent No.1 herein was not a trained teacher. However, the only contention on behalf of the petitioner school management is that the appointment of the respondent No.1 herein was not in accordance with law and after following due procedure as required and therefore, he is not entitled to the salary as a trained teacher. As such no other submissions have been made.
6. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.
7. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 herein continued in service as a P.T. Teacher for about 36 years and at no point of time, the petitioner management raised any dispute that the appointment of the respondent No.1 herein is not made in accordance with law and/or de- hors the law and/or without following any procedure. In any case it will not be open for the petitioner management to raise aforesaid contention and/or take advantage of its own wrong, as it is the petitioner management who appointed the respondent No.1 herein and continued him in service for approximately 36 years. In any case, when the respondent No.1 herein was having requisite qualification of C.P. Ed., which is required for the P.T. Teacher, he is entitled to salary as a trained teacher. Under the circumstances, no illegality has been committed either by the tribunal and/or subsequently by the District Education Officer, by which the petitioner is directed to pay salary to the respondent No.1 herein - teacher as a trained teacher.
8. Under the circumstances and in view of the above, both the petitions fail and they deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
It is reported that the petitioner management has deposited 50% of the salary due and payable to the respondent No.1 herein as a trained teacher, which is lying with the registry of this Court, which the respondent No.1 herein is permitted to withdraw and the registry is directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the respondent No.1 herein – Somabhai Manilal Patel, by Account Payee Cheque on proper identification and verification.
As the petitions are dismissed, petitioner- management is hereby directed to pay balance 50% of the salary as a trained teacher due and payable to the respondent No.1 teacher - Somabhai Manilal Patel, by way of Account Payee Cheque, within a period of THREE MONTHS from today.
In view of disposal of the main Special Civil Application, no order in Civil Application No. 9180 of 2010 and the same is also disposed of accordingly.
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik