1. RULE. Mr. Niraj Sharma, learned AGP waives service of Rule for the respondents. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus, directing the respondent No.2 – District Education Officer, Junagadh, to initiate the exercise of upgradation of Secondary School Teacher to the level of Higher Secondary School Teacher as per the list of the teachers at Annexure A.
(B) During the pendency and final hearing of this petition, Your Lordship be leased to direct the respondent No.2 – District Education Officer to start exercise of upgradation of Secondary School teacher to Higher Secondary School Teacher.
(C) The respondents Authority may be restrained from appointing anyone in Higher Secondary School before exercising to upgrade present petitioners, who are teaching in Higher Secondary Schools.
(D) This Hon'ble Court be pleased grant any other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Mr. D.P. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioners has raised only one contention to the effect that as per the order passed in a similar matter by this Court (Coram : Akil Kureshi, J.) in Special Civil Application No.13050 of 2004 with Special Civil Application No.7519 of 2004 dated 2.3.2005, the case of the petitioners also should be considered by the respondent authorities. No further or other contentions are raised by Mr. D.P. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioners.
3. Mr. Niraj Sharma, learned AGP has relied upon the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.2. Learned AGP submitted that even if the respondents are directed to consider the representation filed by the petitioners, this Court may not observe anything on merits and more particularly on the aspect whether the petitioners are entitled to upgradation or not. The learned AGP submitted that considering the present case, the petitioners are not entitled for any upgradation. However, the respondents have to take decision as per their own policy reflected by way of resolution dated 12.2.2004.
4. Considering the above submissions, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners pending before it dated 21.6.2011 on its own merits without being influenced by the present order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the applicability of the provisions of the resolution dated 12.2.2004 and the authorities shall decide the representation on its own merits.
5. With these observations, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. No order as to cost.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya