JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 07.10.2008 passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Application No. 150 of 2005, whereby the application filed by the petitioner was rejected. 2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Bipin Mehta for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is appointed on 21.03.2002 in respondent No. 1-School and has also been granted the benefit of surplus in view of the Government Policy. 2.1. He has submitted that one Mr. Hiteshbhai Prajapati has been retained by the School Management for teaching in classes of Standard VIII and IX however, the petitioner has been removed on the ground that he would not be able to teach the subject of Physical Education in classes of Standard VIII and IX, which is illegal and arbitrary. He has submitted that the petitioner was required to be retained in the School as he is holding qualification of Masters in Arts with English language as well as B.Ed in Sanskrit language. Learned advocate has further submitted that the Tribunal fell in error in rejecting his application since the petitioner was also a Schedule Caste employee and in order to maintain the ratio, he could not have been discontinued from the services. No other submissions have been made by the learned advocate for the petitioner. 3. Learned advocate Ms. Tejal Vashi for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that the impugned judgment and order does not require any interference since the Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the District Education Officer, wherein the proposal of the School Management was accepted as there was reduction in the strength of students in the School and one class of each of Standard VIII and IX was required to be reduced. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam for the respondent No. 4 has adopted the submissions advanced by the learned advocate Ms. Tejal Vashi for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal does not require interference. 5. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam for the respondent No. 4 has adopted the submissions advanced by the learned advocate Ms. Tejal Vashi for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal does not require interference. 5. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have also perused the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal as well as the order passed by the District Education Officer, whereby the proposal of the School Management for reduction in classes has been accepted and accordingly the petitioner has been relieved from the services. 6. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has raised an objection before the Tribunal that one Mr. Hiteshbhai Prajapati has been illegally retained by the School Management pursuant to the order passed by the District Education Officer however, neither before the Tribunal nor before this court, Mr. Hiteshbhai Prajapati, who has been retained in the service, has been made a party-respondent. The entire case of the petitioner is that Mr. Hiteshbhai Prajapati should not have been retained in services and instead the petitioner should have been continued in the service. Thus, in absence of appropriate party-Mr. Hiteshbhai Prajapati, no adverse order can be passed against him holding that he was not entitled to be retained by the School Management. 7. Be that as it may, since there was reduction of strength of Standard VIII and IX, the School Management sent the proposal to the District Education officer for reduction of one class of each of Standard VIII and IX and after hearing the concerned parties including the petitioner, on 04.03.2005, the District Education officer passed the order dated 13.06.2005, whereby the School Management's proposal for reduction of classes was granted. The District Education officer, after a detailed examination of the facts including the appointment of the petitioner and one Mr. Hiteshbhai Prajapati, has opined that since Mr. Hiteshbhai Prajapati would be in a position to teach an extra subject of Physical Education. Thus, it is opined by District Education Officer that he is required to be retained in the service. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner as well as Mr. Hiteshbhai Prajapati was appointed on the same date i.e. 21.03.2002. Hiteshbhai Prajapati would be in a position to teach an extra subject of Physical Education. Thus, it is opined by District Education Officer that he is required to be retained in the service. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner as well as Mr. Hiteshbhai Prajapati was appointed on the same date i.e. 21.03.2002. The aforesaid order passed by the District Education officer was subject matter of challenge in the Application No. 150 of 2005 filed by the petitioner. 8. The Tribunal, after hearing the concerned parties, except Mr. Hiteshbhai Prajapati, has dismissed Application No. 150 of 2005 filed by the petitioner by observing thus: "11. It, thus, become clear that unless and until a teacher is having sufficient workload or there is any scope for topping up of his workload it is falling short marginally, he cannot be retained in the school. In the school. In the instant case, the applicant being a teacher of English and Sanskrit does not get sufficient workload due to reduction of 2 classes. The other candidate viz. Mr. Prajapati who also appears to have been appointed on the same date can be continued in service because through his workload in his subject also is reduced but due to the fact that he is qualified to teach English and Sanskrit subjects also there is a scope for topping up his workload by giving him the periods of English and Sanskrit subjects and thereby bringing his workload to the required level prescribed under the guidelines. 12. The applicant has also raised a point about the discrimination on the ground that Smt. Vandanaben S. Gantiya who happens to be junior to him (date of appointment 12.6.03) was retained in service. This argument of the applicant cannot be accepted for two reasons. (1) as stated earlier in the field of education the principles of "first come last go" is not strictly followed. The subject requirement of a teacher i.e. his usefulness in the school is considered as the main criteria for deciding whether a teacher is to be retained or relieved (2) Smt. Vandanaben S. Gantiya is admittedly a teacher for the subject of Gujarati and Sanskrit. The D.E.O. Has found full workload of that subject and, therefore, his decision to continue her in service cannot be faulted as contended by the applicant." 9. The D.E.O. Has found full workload of that subject and, therefore, his decision to continue her in service cannot be faulted as contended by the applicant." 9. A threadbare perusal of the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal does not reveal any illegality or perversity and the Tribunal has precisely held that Mr. Hiteshbhai Prajapati was required to be retained in the service in view of his qualification of B.P.Ed. and also that his appointment was made for teaching the subject of Physical Education. The School Management was benefited in taking service of Mr. Hiteshbhai Prajapati in all the subjects, including the subject of Physical Education and the same would be more advantageous to them, whereas if the petitioner was allowed to be retained, the students would suffer with respect of subject of Physical Education as the petitioner was not qualified for the same. Thus, no error is found in the decision of the District Education Officer or in the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, whereby the order of the District Education Officer is confirmed. 10. In this view for the matter, the present writ petition fails. Rule is discharged. Further, it is clarified that the dismissal of the writ petition may not be construed adverse to the petitioner as it is pointed out that subsequently he is appointed and he has been granted the benefit of surplus.