Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
No 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 ?
No 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
No ========================================= MALVIKABEN K.JOSHI Versus STATE OF GUAJRAT & 2 =========================================Appearance :
MR SP MAJMUDAR for Petitioner(s) : 1,MRAJAYDACHARYA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR PRANAV DAVE, ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. MR VH DESAI for Respondent(s) :
3, ========================================= CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI Date : 11/01/2012 CAV JUDGMENT
1. This petition was ordered to be heard with Special Civil Application No.2590 of 1990, vide order dated 16.9.2005. The prayers made in this petition, vide para 17, are as under:-
(A) Admit and allow this petition and quash and set aside communication dated 6th January 2005 issued by office of respondent no.2-Commissioner for Higher Education (ANNEXURE 'N') and direct the respondent authorities to fix the salary of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/- effective from 20th August 1987 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to fix the petitioner's salary in the pay scale of Rs.10,000/- on her completion of 7 years of service and to give her Selection Grade on her completion of 9 years of service in the pay scale of Rs.12,000-18,000/-.
(B) This Honourable Court be pleased to direct the respondents to revise the pay scale of the petitioner from time to time and to make refixation and to pay her arrears of difference of salary with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
(C) This Honourable Court be pleased to direct the respondents to give the petitioner an additional increment at the rate of Rs.75/- instead of Rs.45/- and also to pay arrears of difference thereof."
2. The case of the petitioner in this petition is to the effect that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer by respondent No.3 in Hindi subject and the petitioner would be entitled to be placed in senior pay scale of Rs.3000-5000/- as she has completed 8 years of services after regular appointment with relaxation as provided in para 9 of Government Resolution dated 14.9.1988. It is further averred that the petitioner would also be entitled to increments in the said pay scale and respondent No.2 was not justified in not giving the benefit of the pay scale, on the ground that the case of the petitioner was pending before the Hon'ble High Court, as found from the service book. The petitioner has further claimed that as per the letter of the Principal of the College, since the petitioner has put in service of 9 years as on 19.8.1996, she would be entitled to the selection grade of Rs.12000-18300/- with effect from 20.8.1996. However, the respondents did not decide the claim of the petitioner and rejected it on the ground that as per the Resolutions dated 14.9.1988 and 7.9.1999 of the Education Department, State of Gujarat, the petitioner is not entitled to the selection grade on the basis of the above-said prayers made in the petition.
3. The prayers made in this petition are not required to be examined and decided on merits, because this Court has already dismissed Special Civil Application No.2590 of 1990 filed by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner had challenged the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 6.3.1990 of not giving approval to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in Hindi subject and order dated 14.3.1990 being a consequential order terminating the service of the petitioner from the post of Lecturer. This Court in the above-said petition has held that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in Hindi subject was illegal and invalid appointment as the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed on the post of Lecturer in Hindi subject. This Court has held that the respondents have committed no illegality in passing the above-said orders. This Court has also refused to regularize the services of the petitioner. In view of this position, since the very appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in Hindi subject is not found to be legal and since the petitioner is not entitled to hold the post of Lecturer in Hindi subject, there is no question of granting any other benefits as claimed by the petitioner in this petition.
4. In the above view of the matter, the petition is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. No cost.
Sd/-
(C.L.
SONI, J.) omkar Top