Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 594 (GUJ)

S J Mavani v. State of Gujarat

2024-03-19

M.PRACHCHHAK

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India and thereby, seeking the relief as prayed in the petition, which are reproduced as under:- “A) Directing the respondents to grant absorption/lien to the petitioner under the District Education Committee, Jamnagar, Respondent no.3 from the due date on account of his selection in the year 1980. B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the Respondent no.3 may be directed to grant the absorption/lien to the petitioner forthwith. C) To grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper.” 2. The brief facts are as under. The petitioner was serving as a Principal of Ashramshala, Varvala, District – Jamnagar. He was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 16.08.1972 and promoted as a Principal on 01.06.1993 and working in the same Ashramshala. On 23.08.1973, the State of Gujarat issued the resolution regarding absorption of teachers working in Ashramshalas in the schools of the District Education Committee. The petitioner applied for being absorbed in accordance with the resolution and accordingly, the petitioner was selected for absorption in the meeting held on 19.04.1980. Though the petitioner was selected for absorption, i.e. lien in the year 1980, he was not actually granted the lien. The State Government by the resolution dated 08.12.1999 cancelled the resolution dated 23.08.1973 providing for lien/absorption. The said resolution was challenged by the Gujarat Rajya Ashramshala Karmchari Sangh by way of preferring the resolution dated 08.12.1999. The Division Bench of this Court stayed the resolution dated 08.12.1999 until further orders. The said Gujarat Rajya Ashramshala Karmchari Sangh also filed the Special Civil Application No.23626 of 2005 challenging the Government Circular dtd.19.03.1996. By the order dated 28.12.2005, the Division Bench of this Court also stayed the circular dated 19.03.1996. When the petitioner came to know about the same, he made representation for grant of lien on the basis of his selection in the year 1980. However, the petitioner was not granted lien. By the letter dated 18.08.2010, the respondent no.3 informed the petitioner that as per the resolution dated 08.12.1999, the provision for lien for the Ashramshala teachers has been cancelled and hence, the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 4. However, the petitioner was not granted lien. By the letter dated 18.08.2010, the respondent no.3 informed the petitioner that as per the resolution dated 08.12.1999, the provision for lien for the Ashramshala teachers has been cancelled and hence, the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 4. Ms.M.R.Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that since the Circular issued by the Education Committee on 18.04.2006, more particularly as per clause 4 of the said Circular, the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed in the petition. In support of her submission, she has referred to and relied upon the judgment and order of this Hon’ble Court passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.334 of 2007, dtd. 23rd June, 2014. She has further submitted that in view of the said decision, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits and the prayers, which are made in the present petition. 5. As against the same, Ms.Khyati Hathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 – District Primary Education Officer, Jamnagar has referred to and relied upon the affidavit-in-reply. She has submitted that as per the averments made in the reply, more particularly in para nos.3, 4 and 5, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the present petition in view of the fact that the petitioner has worked only in one Ashramshala during the course of his service i.e. from 1980 till the date of his retirement. It is further submitted that the facts of the judgment and order on which the petitioner has placed reliance in support of his case, is totally different and the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. She has submitted that as per the said judgment, those persons who have worked in one Ashramshala and during the course of their service, either the said Ashramshala is closed or they are transferred to another Ashramshala. She has submitted that this Hon’ble Court held that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefits of the Government Circular so far as the lien or absorption is concerned. She has submitted that here, in the present case, said judgment is not applicable as the petitioner has completed his total length of service only in one Ashramshala and therefore, the question of absorption or fixing the lien is not maintainable. She has submitted that here, in the present case, said judgment is not applicable as the petitioner has completed his total length of service only in one Ashramshala and therefore, the question of absorption or fixing the lien is not maintainable. It is also submitted that the petitioner is getting pension and has got all his retiral benefits and therefore, the petitioner being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 6. In view of the said facts and the judgment and order of the Division Bench of this Court, the prayers made in the present petition are not required to be considered. In view of the above facts, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has already retired and therefore also, the prayer made in the petition has become infructuous. No order as to costs. Rule is discharged.