1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-
"[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to admit/ allow the present petition in the interest of justice;
[B] Be pleased to quash and set aside an impugned order passed by the Secretary of Education i.e. Respondent no. 1 dated 30-8-2007 by vide Sr. No. PRE-1107-CC-553-K at Ann.A to this petition, in the interest of justice;
[C] Be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be directed to the Respondents (Particularly Resp. No. 1) to give the benefit of lien and further be directed to respondent no. 1 to give the same effect i.e. to give the benefit of lien to the present petitioner, as they have given effect to other candidates in S.C.A. No. 25254/2006 to 25256/2006, according to the order passed on dated 19-12-2006 by the Resp. No. 1, at Ann Coll, in the interest of justice;
[D] & [E] ......."
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Ashramshala teacher after following due procedure of appointment. It is the case of the petitioner that she was selected by the District Education Committee Valsad being a Vidhya Sahayak. As the petitioner wanted to take the benefit of G.R. Dated 23.08.1973, the petitioner continued in Ashramshala of Navsari. It is the case of the petitioner that she was not granted the benefit of G.R. Dated 23.08.1973 since she was not selected by the respective District Education Committee and that she was at the relevant time working in an Ashramshala of Navsari. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that subsequently the petitioner is selected by the competent authority and in view of this development, this Court may remand the matter to respondent no. 1 to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh. Therefore, in the fitness of things it would be appropriate that respondent no. 1 decides the issue afresh, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to present its case.
4. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.08.2007 passed by respondent no. 1 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent no. 1 for fresh consideration. The petitioner will approach respondent no. 1 within a period of four weeks from today. On the petitioner remaining present before him, the authority concerned will fix the date of hearing, which may be convenient to all concerned and on the date so fixed, it shall proceed with the hearing of the matter after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to present its case and after considering all the relevant documents, respondent no. 1 will render its decision within a period of four months thereafter. It is, however, observed that while deciding the matter afresh, respondent no.1 shall not be influenced by the fact that this Court has quashed its earlier order and shall decide the same in accordance with law. This Court has not entered into the merits of the case and has remanded the matter only in view of the fact that subsequently the petitioner is selected by the competent authority.
5. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Direct Service is permitted.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top