PANDYA PURNABEN PRANSHANKAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GANDHINAGAR
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
PANDYA PURNABEN PRANSHANKAR
Director Of Education Higher Secondary Education Department Gandhinagar
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The petitioners who are serving as Assistant Teachers in Municipal Girls High School Amreli have by this petition challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5 Shri P. K. Rupala as Principal of the said Girls High School on several grounds the main ground being that Shri Rupala being a male could not have been appointed as Principal of the Girls High School in view of the proviso to Regulation 20 of the Gujarat Secondary Regulations 1974 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Regulations) framed by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Sec. 54 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).
(2.)The petitioners have alleged that they along with others applied for the post in question but ultimately two females and respondent No. 5 were a selected but as the two females refused to accept the appointment Shri P. K. Rupala has been appointed as Principal 8s per the say of the respondents. The petitioners are alleged that respondent No. 5 could not have been appointed as Principal of the said School in view of the Regulation 20(1) of the Regulation. They have also alleged that proper record has not been maintained about the interviews and that the selection of Shri Rupala in illegal also on merits. The respondents have filed affidavit-in-reply stating therein that the appointment of Shri Rupala as Principal is made because no suitable female candidate was available. It is their contention that the appointment of a male was permissible under clause 59.1 of the Grant-in-aid Code. It is also their contention that the proviso to Regulation 20(1) is directory and not mandatory in nature. It is also their contention that the proviso to Regulation 20(1) also offends Arts. 14 15 and 16 of the Constitution and therefore it cannot be given effect to. It is also the contention of the respondents that the petitioners have alternative remedy by way of approaching the Tribunal under Sec. 38 of the Act and therefore also this petition is not maintainable.
(3.)Having gone through the affidavits produced on record and having heard the learned Advocates for the parties I am inclined to take the view that the present petition is maintainable because the question at issue cannot be decided by the Tribunal. I am also further of the view the appointment of Shri P. K. Rupala is contrary to the proviso to Regulation 20(1) of the Regulations and therefore it is required to be quashed. As I am inclined to quash the appointment of Shri Rupala above ground I do not propose to go into the factual aspects with regard to the selection of Shri Rupala.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.