IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2487 of 1995 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================================= HK VASA - Petitioner(s) Versus VICTORIA ISLLAMI MADRESSA BOYS& GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL & 3 -
Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR DHIRENDRA MEHTA for Petitioner(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, MR JAY THAKKAR FOR MR YOGESH S LAKHANI for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 3 - 4.
========================================================= CORAM :
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 18/01/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) In this writ-application, the writ-petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated March 22, 1994/September 7, 1994, passed by the learned Member of the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal so far as Application Nos. 151 of 1992 and 577 of 1992 were concerned, and has also prayed for declaration that Section 40A of the Gujarat Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Act, 1972 ["the Act" for short] is discriminatory, unconstitutional, ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also prayed for a further declaration that the petitioner is entitled to get pay-scale of teaching staff as untrained graduate teachers as laid down by the State Government from time to time and should be reinstated in service with full back wages with all consequential benefits as Assistant Teacher in the respondent-school.
It appears that in support of his claim, the petitioner relied upon the provision contained in Section 36[1][a] of the Act, but such contention was not accepted by the Tribunal by relying upon the provision contained in Section 40A of the Act.
In such circumstances, the petitioner has challenged the provision contained in Section 40A of the Act as ultra vires as indicated earlier.
Since a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamlesh Purshottambhai Joshi vs. State of Gujarat and others, being Special Civil Application Nos. 23753 of 2006 and others has already decided that the aforesaid provision contained in Section 40A of the Act is not ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution, we are of the view that the petitioner has no merit in this matter. We consequently, by following the above said decision of the Division Bench, hold that the Tribunal rightly refused to give any relief in favour of the petitioner.
The writ-application is thus dismissed with the above observations. Rule is discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be, however, no orders as to costs.
[BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, ACTING CJ.]
[J.B.PARDIWALA, J.]
pirzada/-