1. The petitioners herein have prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 23.03.2012 passed by the Gujarat Higher Schools Services Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Applications No. 155/2006 & 135/2001.
2. The respondent no. 1 is working as a librarian with the petitioner no. 1 School since 01.10.1992. It is the case of the petitioner school that he was very indisciplined and therefore was warned many times orally as well as in writing by the principal and management. The respondent no. 1 was therefore issued various show cause notices by petitioner no. 1 for indiscipline and also for not doing work allotted to him.
2.1 It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no. 1 unauthorizedly remained absent from work and inspite of several reminders and communications did not resume duty. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 preferred application being Application No. 109 of 1999 before the Tribunal for appropriate orders so as to not to allot other works than library work. The respondent no. 1 also preferred Applications No. 135 of 2001 and 155 of 2006 before the Tribunal for salary and legitimate dues. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, vide impugned order partly allowed the applications. Being aggrieved by the order, the present petitions are preferred.
3. Mr. Savani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the conduct of respondent no. 1 with the petitioner school and management. He submitted that the petitioners issued many notices to respondent no. 1 with regard to his indiscipline and misbehaviour. He submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider that respondent no. 1 remained absent from April 1999 to April 2000 and from January 2001 to August 2001 without any leave report. He submitted that there are many contradictions in the findings of the Tribunal and therefore the same deserve to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard. This court has gone through the evidence on record, more particularly, the impugned order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has gone through the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that respondent no. 1 seems to be ready and willing to work as 'Librarian' for which he was appointed. However, when there is a shortage of staff during examinations, respondent no. 1 can be given the work of reliever which is not a 'teaching' work. Respondent no. 1 can be asked to attend the class as proxy in case of exigencies for exceptional cases when staff is not adequate. However, respondent no. 1 cannot be allotted teaching work as he is not qualified for the same. Doing so shall only effect the cases of the students. This court is in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal. No case is made out for interference in the orders. The petitioner management can allot library work or administrative work to respondent no. 1 and not teaching work. However, he can perform as a proxy or reliever during exigencies.
5. In the premises aforesaid, petitions are devoid of any merits and deserve to be dismissed. The impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are upheld. No costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//