R. M. DOSHIT, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these petitions are preferred hy the State of Gujarat against the common judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal in application Nos. 38/95, 39/95 and 37/95 preferred by respondents Nos. 1 in these petitions and one Shri Ajitsinh N. Chudasama. Both the respondent No. I were serving as assistant Teachers in the respondent No. 2 school and on account of closure of certain classes, were declared surplus by an order made by the petitioner No. 2 herein on 23rd december, 1994. Under the said order, the petitioner No. 2 declared that in view of the instructions contained in the Government, Resolution dated 21st May, 1994, the said two teachers would not be entitled to protection as surplus teachers. Feeling aggrieved, both the teachers preferred the above referred Applications before the Tribunal. ( 2 ) THE dispute revolves around the interpretation of Government Resolution dated 21st May, 1994 and whether the said teachers are entitled to protection as surplus teachers inspite of the said Government Resolution dated 21st May, 1994. It appears that in the year 1976, the Government introduced a new pattern of education dividing the Secondary education into Secondary Education and Higher Secondary Education. As a result, several teachers were rendered surplus who were known as "supernumerary teachers". The services of such supernumerary teachers were protected by assuring them alternative employment in any other school where the vacancy may exist. However, the protection extended to the supernumerary teachers was further extended and all the teachers who were rendered surplus on account of either the closure of classes or the closure of the school were given protection of alternate employment. The grant of such protection had a heavy toll on the public exchequer. Considering the financial liability arising of grant of such protection, the Government decided to restrict the grant of protection to the teachers who were appointed on or before 15th April, 1994. The policy decision taken by the government in this regard is contained in the Government Resolution dated 1st May, 1994. Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the said Resolution are relevant for our purpose. The policy decision taken by the government in this regard is contained in the Government Resolution dated 1st May, 1994. Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the said Resolution are relevant for our purpose. Paragraph-1 provides, interalia, that the secondary teachers appointed on or before 15th April, 1994 and who have completed one years service i. e. service of 365 days, shall be entitled to the protection of a surplus teacher, and those who are appointed on or after 16th April, 1994, shall not be entitled to the protection of a surplus teacher. Paragraph-4 provides," interalia, that the teachers appointed upto 15th April, 1994 and who have completed one years service on that date, if are relieved from service, would be given protection of a surplus teacher on fulfilment of the conditions prescribed thereunder. Learned AGP Mr. Bambhania appearing for the petitioners has submitted that paragraph-1 of the Resolution can not be read in isolation of paragraph-4 of the said Resolution, and reading paragraphs 1 and 4 together, the only possible construction would be that, only those teachers who are appointed on or before 15th April, 1994 and who have completed one years service i. e. service of 365 days on or before 15th April, 1994, if declared surplus, would be entitled to the protection of a surplus teacher. In other words, the teachers who have been appointed on or before 15th April, 1994, but who have not completed one years service on or before 15th April, 1994, would not be entitled to the protection of a surplus teacher even if they are declared surplus after completion of a service of one year or more. Learned advocate Mr. Shah appearing for the respondent No. 1 in Special Civil application No. 5499/96 has submitted that instructions contained in paragraphs 1 and 4 deal with separate sets of facts and have a play in different fields. Both the paragraphs are independent of each other and each is required to be read in isolation of the other. He has submitted that paragraph-1 deals with those teachers/employees who are appointed on or before 15th April, 1994 and who are declared surplus any time after completion of one years service. So far as paragraph-4 is concerned, it refers to the teachers/employees appointed on or before 15th April, 1994 and who have completed one years service or more on 15th April, 1994. So far as paragraph-4 is concerned, it refers to the teachers/employees appointed on or before 15th April, 1994 and who have completed one years service or more on 15th April, 1994. He has submitted that in the first set of teachers/employees, no conditions are provided, while in the second set of teachers/employees, conditions are laid down in said paragraph-4. He has, therefore, submitted that the teachers covered by paragraph-1 would be entitled to protection without any condition being fulfilled either by the teacher or the school concerned, while those who are covered by paragraph-4 would be entitled to protection only on the conditions mentioned in the said paragraph. ( 3 ) I am afraid, I can not accept the contention raised by Mr. Shah, Paragraph-1 is a general provision indicating the class of persons to whom the instructions contained in the said Resolution apply. The persons to whom this Resolution applies are those who are appointed on or before 15th April, 1994 and have completed one years service. While instructions contained in paragraph-4 are more explicit and contain the details regarding grant of protection of a surplus teacher/employee. I am, therefore, of the opinion that paragraphs 1 and 4 of the said Resolution are required to be read together and a harmonious construction is required to be arrived at. Keeping this principle in view, the only construction that can be put to the above paragraphs is, only those teachers/employees who are appointed on or before 15th April, 1994 and have completed one years service i. e. service of 365 days on or before 15th April 1994 are entitled to the protection of a surplus teacher/employee on fulfilling the conditions enumerated in paragraph-4 of the Resolution. The learned Tribunal is right in holding that paragraphs i and 4 of the above Resolution are required to he read in harmony. However, the tribunal has committed an error while interpreting Clause (4 ). The words "that date" has got to be read in relation to the date referred to in the said paragraph i. e. 15th April, 1994. The word "that date" can not be read to mean the date of declaration as a surplus teacher. However, the tribunal has committed an error while interpreting Clause (4 ). The words "that date" has got to be read in relation to the date referred to in the said paragraph i. e. 15th April, 1994. The word "that date" can not be read to mean the date of declaration as a surplus teacher. I, therefore, hold that only those teachers/employees of the Non- Government secondary Schools and Higher Secondary Schools who have been appointed on or before 15th April, 1994 and have completed one years service i. e. service of 365 days on or before 15th April, 1994, would be entitled to the protection of a surplus teacher an their being declared surplus on account of closure of classes or the school. ( 4 ) IN the present matters, while admitting the petitions to final hearing, this court has not granted any interim order in favour of the petitioners, as a result, the orders of the tribunal have become effective and are complied with. I am informed that both the respondents Nos. 1 in these petitions have been given protection of surplus teacher and are appointed in some other schools. Since both the respondents Nos. 1 have already been given the benefit of the protection of surplus teachers and are absorbed in other schools, I do not consider it fit or in the interest of justice to disturb their absorption in other schools. The respondents No. 1 in both these petitions claim to have been appointed in the respondent No. 2 school under order dated 25th September, 1993 and they claim to have joined duty on 10th October, 1993. A dispute has been raised regarding the date of appointment of the respondents Nos. 1 and their joining duty. It appears that in the proceeding of declaration of surplus teacher before the petitioner No. 2, the respondent school had furnished information where both the respondents were shown to have been appointed with effect from 1st June, 1994 and 1st January, 1994 respectively. Mr. Bambhania, the learned AGP has vehemently argued that neither of the said respondent has been appointed on 10th October, 1993 as averred by them. It also appears that neither of the respondents Nos. 1 has produced any evidence in support of their contention except the order of appointment. However, since both the respondents Nos. Mr. Bambhania, the learned AGP has vehemently argued that neither of the said respondent has been appointed on 10th October, 1993 as averred by them. It also appears that neither of the respondents Nos. 1 has produced any evidence in support of their contention except the order of appointment. However, since both the respondents Nos. 1 have been extended the protection of a surplus teacher and are absorbed in other schools and since I do not intend to disturb their absorption in other schools I do not deal with the disputed question of fact. ( 5 ) PETITIONS are allowed to the aforesaid extent only. Rule in each of the petition is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. .