JUDGMENT : ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 14.03.2011 passed by the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal (“the Tribunal” for short) in Application No. 33 of 2006, whereby the termination order dated 19.01.2006, passed by respondent No. 1, has been confirmed. The said order is also the subject-matter of challenge. 2. The petitioner, being qualified, was appointed as a Vidya Sahayak in the Government-aided Primary School run by a Trust known as Limbdi Kelavani Mandal which, through its Administrator/Secretary, is the first respondent in the petition. The Principal of the said school is the second respondent. The first and second respondents will hereinafter be referred to as the school management for convenience. It is the case of the petitioner that her appointment as Vidya Sahayak with effect from 15.03.2002, though initially for a period of one year on probation, was made after following due procedure and process of law. As per the say of the petitioner, due to certain personal difficulties she was compelled to take leave after 14.03.2004, for certain periods of time. As no leave was available, she took leave without pay. The entire leave period of the petitioner stood sanctioned by the school management. The petitioner asserts that during her entire service career no memorandum, charge-sheet or warning has been issued to her. 3. In the school where the petitioner was employed, there arose a vacancy due to the superannuation of an Assistant Teacher, on 30.05.2004 The petitioner had completed two years of service by then. She made a representation to the school management on 14.03.2004, requesting that she be appointed as a regular Teacher with effect from 01.06.2004, against the said vacant post. The school management moved a proposal to the District Education Officer (the third respondent) vide a letter dated 27.09.2005, in this regard. By another letter dated 14.11.2005, the school management requested the third respondent to accord approval to the proposal moved by it, to appoint the petitioner as a permanent Teacher. As the petitioner had taken leave without pay, she had deposited the amount of pay with the school management, which fact has also been acknowledged in the proposal. By another letter dated 14.11.2005, the school management requested the third respondent to accord approval to the proposal moved by it, to appoint the petitioner as a permanent Teacher. As the petitioner had taken leave without pay, she had deposited the amount of pay with the school management, which fact has also been acknowledged in the proposal. Vide an order dated 03.01.2006, the third respondent approved the proposal of the school management and accorded sanction to the proposal of absorbing the petitioner as a permanent teacher with effect from 01.06.2004 The order dated 03.01.2006 contains certain conditions. Condition No. 5 stipulates that the petitioner has been made permanent against the post of Assistant Teacher that fell vacant due to the superannuation of the incumbent. Condition No. 6 stipulates that the petitioner would be governed by the provisions of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 (“the Act”) and the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949 (“the Rules”). In condition No. 8, it is stated that an entry stating that the petitioner appointed as a permanent Teacher is required to be made in her service book. Suddenly, while the petitioner was on medical leave, her services were abruptly terminated by the impugned show cause notice-cum-order dated 19.01.2006, issued by the school management, with effect from 28.01.2006 The petitioner made a representation dated 25.01.2006 against the above order-cum-show cause notice, but to no avail. 4. Aggrieved by the above-mentioned order of termination, the petitioner approached the tribunal by filing Application No. 33 of 2006. Before the Tribunal, the school management took a stand that on the date of the issuance of the show cause notice - cum - order of termination dated 19.01.2006, they had not received the order dated 03.01.2006 passed by the third respondent, according sanction to the proposal of absorbing the petitioner as a permanent Teacher against the vacant post. The third respondent filed a reply to the application before the Tribunal, stating that in view of the order dated 03.01.2006, the school management ought to have resorted to the procedure laid down in Section 40B of the Act while terminating the services of the petitioner, which they failed to do. The Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioner by passing the impugned order dated 14.03.2011, against which the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Mr. The Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioner by passing the impugned order dated 14.03.2011, against which the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Mr. Jayraj Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has forcefully submitted that the periods of leave availed by the petitioner have all been sanctioned by the school management. It was after such sanction that a proposal was moved by the school management, itself, to accord sanction for the appointment of the petitioner as a permanent Teacher against the post that had fallen vacant. The petitioner had already put in two years of service by then. The periods of leave availed of by the petitioner, therefore, cannot be made an excuse by the school management for the termination of her services. It is further submitted that the leave period with effect from 05.12.2005 to 18.01.2006 is being considered as unauthorised by the school management, which is now taking a stand that the application of the petitioner for the regularisation of this leave period has been rejected by an order dated 06.12.2005 It is contended that this order was never served upon the petitioner which is evident from the order itself, as it does not bear her residential address. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the school management has itself moved the proposal to the third respondent for sanctioning the appointment of the petitioner as a Teacher against the vacant post, which proposal has been sanctioned by the order dated 03.01.2006 That it is not necessary that the petitioner completes five years' service on the post of Vidya Sahayak before she can be appointed as a Teacher. As per the policy, if no vacant post is available then a Vidya Sahayak would be absorbed as a permanent Teacher after five years, but if a vacant post exists, as in the present case, a Vidya Sahayak can be appointed as a Teacher after two years of service. There is no rule that bars such appointment after two years. Had that been the case the school management would not have moved the proposal in the case of the petitioner. It is submitted that once sanction has been accorded by the third respondent, the school management were bound to follow the procedure stipulated under Section 40B of the Act. There is no rule that bars such appointment after two years. Had that been the case the school management would not have moved the proposal in the case of the petitioner. It is submitted that once sanction has been accorded by the third respondent, the school management were bound to follow the procedure stipulated under Section 40B of the Act. Instead of doing that, they have merely issued a show cause notice which is also the order of termination, dispensing with the services of the petitioner with effect from 26.01.2006, a public holiday. That, the appointment of the petitioner as a Vidya Sahayak has been made after following the due procedure of selection, as per the Act. In the order dated 03.01.2006, it is clearly stipulated in Condition No. 6, that the petitioner would be governed by the provisions of the Act. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the respondents to have followed the procedure envisaged under Section 40B, while terminating the services of the petitioner. As this has not been done the order of termination is bad in law. 7. It is further urged on behalf of the petitioner that once the proposal sent by the school management has been sanctioned, they are estopped from taking a contrary stand. Even if they decide to terminate the services of the petitioner, the school management is bound to follow the provisions of Section 40B of the Act, as the order dated 03.01.2006, places the services of the petitioner under the Act. 8. It is contended that the notice dated 06.12.2005, rejecting the leave application of the petitioner, has never been served upon her. The petitioner was on medical leave and was at her residence. She had even annexed the medical certificate with her leave application. The notice has been addressed to the petitioner at the school address and not her residential address. It was, therefore, impossible for the petitioner to have reported for duty in twenty-four hours, as directed by the notice, as she has never received it. The school management had already received the order dated 03.01.2006, sanctioning the proposal for the appointment of the petitioner as a Teacher, before they issued the impugned order dated 19.01.2006 A false stand is now being taken that the order was not received. The school management had already received the order dated 03.01.2006, sanctioning the proposal for the appointment of the petitioner as a Teacher, before they issued the impugned order dated 19.01.2006 A false stand is now being taken that the order was not received. This is evident from the reply to the application filed by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“the RTI Act”). After the passing of the order dated 03.01.2006 by the third respondent, the school management could not have acted contrary to it and it was incumbent upon them to have followed the procedure under Section 40B of the Act. The school management were aware that this procedure is required to be followed as it is clearly stated in the notice dated 06.12.2005 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the Tribunal has fallen into error by concluding that the petitioner could only have been appointed as a Teacher after five years of serving as a Vidya Sahayak and, therefore, the school management was not required to follow the procedure under Section 40B of the Act. This finding is contrary to the policy of the State Government which provides that in the case of a vacancy a Vidya Sahayak can be absorbed as a Teacher after two years' service. That, as the Tribunal has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in a legal and valid manner, the impugned order passed by it, may be quashed and set aside. 10. The petition has been strongly opposed by Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the school management. It is submitted that the petitioner remained absent for quite a long period of time even after the sanction of her leave period, which was adversely affecting the studies of the students. She was, therefore, issued a show cause notice dated 19.01.2006, asking her to show cause within seven days why her services be not terminated with effect from 26.01.2006 It is contended that the petitioner, being a Vidya Sahayak, would have to work satisfactorily for a period of five years before she could be appointed as a permanent Teacher. As a Vidya Sahayak, the services of the petitioner could be terminated by giving her seven days' notice, as has rightly been done. As a Vidya Sahayak, the services of the petitioner could be terminated by giving her seven days' notice, as has rightly been done. The provisions of Section 40B of the Act are not applicable to the petitioner as the order of appointment as a Teacher has not been issued to her. That, the sanction recorded by the third respondent for the appointment of the petitioner as a Teacher cannot be termed as an order of appointment as it is the school management that is the appointing authority and not the third respondent. 11. It is further submitted on behalf of the school management that the order of the Tribunal contains no error, illegality or perversity but has been passed on a correct understanding of the legal and factual position, therefore, deserves no interference. 12. In the alternative, it is submitted that if the Court is inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that the procedure under Section 40B was required to be followed, the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal. 13. Mr. Niraj Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the third and fifth respondents, the District Education Officer and the State of Gujarat, respectively, has drawn the attention of the Court to the affidavit filed by the said respondent before the Tribunal, wherein a stand is taken that before terminating the services of the petitioner, the school management ought to have resorted to the procedure under Section 40B of the Act. To substantiate this stand, learned Assistant Government Pleader has referred to the proposal dated 24.11.2005 moved by the school management to the third respondent, wherein it is clearly stated that sanction be accorded to appoint the petitioner as a Teacher from her current post of Vidya Sahayak as there was a vacancy. Such sanction has been accorded by the order dated 03.01.2006, which has been duly communicated to the school management. It is submitted that when the school management has itself taken a decision to appoint the petitioner as a Teacher, which decision has been approved by the third respondent, then the provisions of Section 40B of the Act would apply, as has been stated in the order dated 03.01.2006 The school management cannot now take a stand that the petitioner is not a Teacher and the provisions of Section 40B would not be applicable to her. The action of the school management in not following the procedure under Section 40B is illegal and the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal, in this regard are, therefore, erroneous. 14. In the above background, this Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length, perused the impugned order of the Tribunal and the other documents on record. 15. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is not covered by Section 40B of the Act as she has not completed five years' service as Vidya Sahayak therefore, according to it, she cannot be considered as a Teacher, more particularly as the school management has not issued an order of appointment after the sanction of the proposal. To ascertain whether this conclusion of the Tribunal is erroneous and perverse can be determined in the peculiar factual position obtaining in the present case. 16. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as a Vidya Sahayak, on probation, for a period of one year with effect from 15.03.2002 Condition No. 1 of the said order stipulated that, after the completion of five years service the petitioner would be placed in the regular pay scale. This order, dated 13-nil-2002 is to be found at Annexure-A to the petition. Condition No. 5 in the said order provided that the services of the petitioner could be brought to an end, by either side, after giving notice of seven days. However, in case of any irregularity, absenteeism or misconduct, the services of the petitioner could be terminated by issuing a notice. The petitioner crossed the probationary period of one year and, in fact, had already completed two years' service as Vidya Sahayak on 14.03.2004 There arose a vacancy in the post of a regular Teacher in the school, on the superannuation of an Assistant Teacher on 31.05.2004 The petitioner made an application dated 11.07.2005 to the school management, submitting that, as per the Government Resolution dated 11.06.1998 pertaining to Vidya Sahayaks, she is entitled to be absorbed in the regular set up and pay scale with effect from 01.06.2004, against the vacant post therefore, she may be so absorbed. The school management forwarded the proposal for the absorption of the petitioner from Vidya Sahayak as Teacher to the third respondent on 27.09.2005 It is specifically mentioned in this communication that the orders sanctioning the leave of the petitioner are enclosed, therefore, sanction be accorded to appoint her as a Teacher from the post of Vidya Sahayak. Another communication dated 24.11.2005 was addressed by the school management to the third respondent in this regard, clarifying that the salary pertaining to the period of leave without pay had been deposited by the petitioner. It was reiterated that the appointment of the petitioner as Teacher, from Vidya Sahayak, be approved. 17. Accordingly, the third respondent granted sanction to the proposal of the school management by the order dated 03.01.2 006, a copy of which was addressed to the school management as well as to the petitioner. A stand has been taken by the school management before the Tribunal and also before this Court, that this order of the third respondent was not received by it. The school management issued a notice dated 19.01.2006 to the petitioner, informing her that her services would stand terminated after seven days, with effect from 26.01.2006 for remaining unauthorisedly absent for different periods amounting to 267 days as shown in the notice, as her application for sanctioning the leave had been turned down by a communication dated 06.12.2005 It is the case of the petitioner that she has never received the communication dated 06.12.2005, which is in the form of a notice, asking her to report for duty within twenty-four hours. A perusal of the said communication, which is to be found at Annexure-RI to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the school management, reveals that it has been addressed to the petitioner at the school address and not her residential address. The petitioner was on medical leave and had even submitted a medical certificate, as can be seen from the notice dated 06.12.2005 Such being the position, it is not possible that the petitioner would have received the notice addressed to her at the school address, when she was on leave and not attending the school. In the said notice it is clearly stated by the school management that the petitioner should attend to her duties immediately, failing which departmental proceedings would be initiated against her. In the said notice it is clearly stated by the school management that the petitioner should attend to her duties immediately, failing which departmental proceedings would be initiated against her. This shows that the school management was aware that the provisions of Section 40B of the Act are required to be followed as these are the only provisions pertaining to departmental proceedings. 18. The school management does not deny the fact that it had sent a proposal to the third respondent for the absorption of the petitioner in the regular set up and pay scale, as a Teacher. It cannot deny that the third respondent sanctioned the said proposal by the order dated 03.01.2006 The stand taken by it that it did not receive the order dated 03.01.2016 before issuing the impugned notice dated 19.01.2006 to the petitioner, terminating her services, is difficult to believe and appears to be a face saving device. This stand is further belied by the documents at Annexure-M collectively, which are the application of the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the answer thereto, clearly revealing that the order dated 03.01.2006 had been sent by the office of the third respondent by registered post to the school management and the acknowledgement has been received. Be that as it may, the fact remains that, pursuant to the sanction granted by the third respondent to absorb the petitioner as a regular Teacher, the school management, instead of issuing an appointment order, issued the notice terminating the services of the petitioner. This aspect has been greatly emphasised by learned counsel for the school management by submitting that without a formal order of appointment, the petitioner cannot be treated as a regular Teacher but remains a Vidya Sahayak, to whom the provisions of Section 40B of the Act are not applicable. 19. The fallacy of this argument is exposed by the order dated 03.01.2006 This order contains an express and specific stipulation that the services of the petitioner, have been regularised as a Teacher against the vacant post due to superannuation. Condition No. 6 of the said order clearly states that the provisions of the Act and Rules would be binding upon the petitioner. This condition clearly places the petitioner under the protective umbrella of Section 40B of the Act. Condition No. 6 of the said order clearly states that the provisions of the Act and Rules would be binding upon the petitioner. This condition clearly places the petitioner under the protective umbrella of Section 40B of the Act. The order of the third respondent cannot be flouted, superseded or nullified by the school management in this regard. 20. The policy of the State Government regarding Vidya Sahayaks is contained in the Government Resolution dated 18.06.1999 which has been discussed and the relevant extract reproduced, in the impugned order of the Tribunal. It is clearly stated in the said Government Resolution that on the satisfactory completion of two years' service as a Vidya Sahayak, if a post of Teacher falls vacant in the school due to superannuation, or otherwise, such Vidya Sahayak is to be absorbed as a Teacher in the regular scale. In the event that no vacancy arises for a period of five years, then after the said period is over the Vidya Sahayak shall be absorbed as a Teacher. From the above policy it is evident that there is no bar that a Vidya Sahayak cannot be absorbed as a Teacher in the regular pay scale before the completion of five years service and after the completion of two years service, if there is a vacancy of a Teacher by superannuation or otherwise. 21. It is only when there is no vacancy during the period of five years that a Vidya Sahayak has to wait for such period before he or she can be absorbed as a Teacher in the regular set-up. The policy clearly lays down that after the satisfactory completion of a period of two years' service as a Vidya Sahayak if there is a vacancy in the school due to the retirement of a Teacher or for any other reason, a Vidya Sahayak can be absorbed as a regular Teacher. This is exactly what has happened in the case of the petitioner. When a vacancy arose due to superannuation, the school management moved the proposal for the absorption of the petitioner as a Teacher in the regular pay scale, as she had completed two years' service as a Vidya Sahayak. This proposal has been sanctioned by the third respondent. This is exactly what has happened in the case of the petitioner. When a vacancy arose due to superannuation, the school management moved the proposal for the absorption of the petitioner as a Teacher in the regular pay scale, as she had completed two years' service as a Vidya Sahayak. This proposal has been sanctioned by the third respondent. The view taken by the Tribunal that because the petitioner had not completed five years of service as a Vidya Sahayak, she could not be absorbed as a Teacher is, therefore, patently erroneous, apart from being a distortion of the policy of the State Government, as contained in the Government Resolution dated 18.06.1999 22. The question that begs an answer is whether, in the absence of a formal order of appointment by the school management, the petitioner can be covered by the procedure envisaged under Section 40 of the Act and whether the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in this regard suffers from perversity or material irregularity, or not? 23. It is true that the initial appointment of the petitioner was on the post of Vidya Sahayak, on probation, for one year. Thereafter, the petitioner completed two years of service as Vidya Sahayak. The leave periods of the petitioner were sanctioned by the school management. When a vacancy arose due to the superannuation of an Assistant Teacher, the school management itself moved a proposal for the absorption of the petitioner as a Teacher. This proposal is in consonance with the Government Resolution dated 18.06.1999, which lays down that after the completion of two years' service, a Vidya Sahayak can be absorbed as a Teacher against a vacant post. The proposal dated 27.09.2005 moved by the school management is very specific in stating that the petitioner be absorbed as a Teacher from the post of Vidya Sahayak. The third respondent accorded sanction to the proposal by the order dated 03.01.2 006. It is clearly stipulated in the said order that the petitioner would be governed by the provisions of the Act. This order has been sent to the school management and, as per the information received by the petitioner under the RTI Act, the order has been received by the school management, though denied. It is clearly stipulated in the said order that the petitioner would be governed by the provisions of the Act. This order has been sent to the school management and, as per the information received by the petitioner under the RTI Act, the order has been received by the school management, though denied. Once the order dated 03.01.2006 has been passed by the third respondent, the school management could not have terminated the services of the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice dated 19.01.2006, in the manner they have done. For all intents and purposes, the services of the petitioner are governed by the Act, as stipulated in the order dated 03.01.2006, as approval had been granted by the third respondent for her appointment as a Teacher, as requested by the school management. After moving the proposal that has been sanctioned, the school management chose to terminate the services of the petitioner by giving her seven days' notice, instead of following the procedure under Section 40B of the Act. The order dated 03.01.2006 of the third respondent was never withdrawn and is binding on the school management. It cannot act contrary to the stipulation in the said order that the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Act, merely by taking the stand that the order was not received by it. This stand is unconvincing and even otherwise, the said order cannot be wished away by the school management. It has been duly passed and communicated and is legal and valid. 24. It has been submitted on behalf of the school management that it has not issued a formal order of appointment as Teacher to the petitioner, therefore, without such an order the petitioner still remains a Vidya Sahayak and her services could be terminated by the issuance of seven days' notice. This stand of the school management is unacceptable in view of the above discussion and the fact that sanction has been accorded for the appointment of the petitioner as a Teacher and she is governed by the provisions of the Act. 25. The provisions of Section 40B of the Act lay down the procedure required to be followed before dismissing a Teacher from service. 25. The provisions of Section 40B of the Act lay down the procedure required to be followed before dismissing a Teacher from service. It may be true that the school management did not issue a formal order of appointment as Teacher to the petitioner after the approval of the proposal, but it is equally true that it has moved the proposal in this regard. After the sanction of the proposal the petitioner was, for all intents and purposes, an approved Teacher, governed by the provisions of the Act. Had the management thought it fit to terminate the services of the petitioner even after it moved the proposal, they could have either withdrawn the proposal or resorted to the procedure under Section 40B of the Act after the passing of the order dated 30.01.2006 by the third respondent. 26. The status of the petitioner after the sanction of the proposal for her absorption as Teacher no longer remained that of a Vidya Sahayak. She had been approved for appointment as a Teacher as per the prevalent policy of the State Government. The stand of the school management that as no appointment order was issued the petitioner was a Vidya Sahayak and her services could be terminated without following the procedure under Section 40B of the Act, cannot be accepted. It is a reflection of the conduct of the school management. On one hand, the school management moves a proposal in favour of the petitioner and on the other, it proceeds to terminate her services after the proposal has been sanctioned. Once the proposal has been approved, the petitioner comes under the protective umbrella of Section 40B of the Act as has been clearly stated in the order dated 03.01.2006, of which the school management is fully aware. For reasons best known to it, the school management has ignored the very sanction they had sought and resorted to a procedure contrary to Section 40B of the Act on a technical ground that it had not issued the formal order of appointment. What is of importance is that proposal moved by the school management for the absorption of the petitioner as a Teacher has never been withdrawn by it. Once approval has been granted to it, the issuance of the order of appointment by the school management remains a mere formality. What is of importance is that proposal moved by the school management for the absorption of the petitioner as a Teacher has never been withdrawn by it. Once approval has been granted to it, the issuance of the order of appointment by the school management remains a mere formality. The order dated 03.01.2006 of the third respondent also stands, therefore as per the said order the services of the petitioner are governed by the provisions of the Act and after the passing of the said order, could not have been terminated by issuing a show cause notice. The school management is well aware of this position as is revealed from the notice dated 06.12.2005 wherein the holding of departmental proceedings is mentioned. The procedure for this is provided by Section 40B of the Act. The stand that the school management did not receive the order dated 03.01.2006, appears to have been taken in order to get out of the obligation of holding a proper departmental inquiry as envisaged under Section 40B of the Act. 27. The case of the petitioner turns on its own peculiar facts wherein the school management has sought the sanction of the third respondent for the absorption of the petitioner as a regular Teacher, but once such sanction has been accorded, has proceeded to dispense with her services without holding a departmental inquiry as per the procedure under Section 40B the Act, as stated in the order granting sanction. 28. The Tribunal has failed to consider the subtle niceties of the situation and the injustice and arbitrariness inherent in the action of the school management. It has proceeded only on the basis of the very same technicalities that form the basis of the stand of the school management. The Tribunal has failed to consider that the order of sanction dated 03.01.2006 has never been withdrawn and as per the said order, even before the issuance of the formal order of appointment, it is clearly stipulated that the services of the petitioner shall be governed by the provisions of the Act. In the considered view of this Court, the Tribunal has fallen into grave error by not considering this aspect and by entering into the broad distinctions between a Vidya Sahayak and Teacher, which are not at all necessary in the present case. In the considered view of this Court, the Tribunal has fallen into grave error by not considering this aspect and by entering into the broad distinctions between a Vidya Sahayak and Teacher, which are not at all necessary in the present case. Once the petitioner is stated to be covered by the provisions of the Act, the school management is bound to resort to the procedure under Section 40B, before dispensing with her services. The school management cannot supersede the order of the third respondent in this regard as it has no power to appoint or dispense with the services of its employees without the prior approval of the said respondent, being a grant-in-aid school. 29. In the view of this Court, the Tribunal has further fallen into patent error by holding that the school management was not obliged to follow the procedure under Section 40B of the Act in the case of the petitioner. In the peculiar facts of the case discussed hereinabove, and as the order dated 03.01.2006 of the third respondent clearly states that the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Act, this finding is perverse and unjust. 30. For the above reasons, the impugned order of the dated 14.03.2011 passed by the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal in Application No. 33 of 2006, as well as the order dated 19.01.2006, passed by the school management, are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service by the school management forthwith. 31. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner shall not be entitled to back-wages for the period she has not worked in the school. However, she shall be entitled to all notional and consequential benefits. 32. The petition is allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Parties to bear their own costs. 33. At this stage, Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave, learned advocate for the school management has prayed that the operation of this judgment be kept in abeyance for some time. For the reasons stated in the judgment, the request is declined.

Avniben Indubhai Contractor v. Sanchalakshri/Secretary-Limbdi Kelvani Mandal