SHANTINIKETAN HINDI PRIMARY SCHOOL Vs. PAL HARIRAM RAMAVTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Shantiniketan Educational Trust claiming to be a minority institution is running two primary unaided schools, one in Gujarati medium and the other in Hindi medium, in State of Gujarat. Respondent Nos. 1- 4 were working as teachers in those schools. Their services were terminated on 05.07.1996 on the ground that they had absented from duties without informing the Management which according to the management amounted to gross indiscipline. Against the order of termination of service they filed Application No. 241 of 1996 before the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal. While they were in service they had filed Application Nos. 3 of 1993, 30 of 1993 and 193 of 1994 before the said Tribunal claiming parity of pay and allowances as per government rules applicable to the untrained teachers. All the applications were heard together by the Tribunal and a common order was passed on 14.07.2000 quashing the termination orders and directing reinstatement with full salary and other benefits from the date of termination till the date of the order with a further direction to pay the salary and other benefits applicable to untrained teachers as per Government Rules, from the dates of their appointment. The Management filed a Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No. 6918 of 2001 which was dismissed by learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court on 19.02.2002 which was affirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 30.10.2004. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been preferred by the employer school.

(3.) Ms. Manisha T. Karia, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal as well as the High Court has committed a grave error in ordering reinstatement with back-wages and also giving a direction to the Management to pay the salary from the date of appointment as per Government Rules. Learned Counsel also submitted that the appellant institute is a minority institution entitled to protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel further submitted that respondent Nos. 1-4 were unqualified, appointed as temporary teachers purely on adhoc basis on a fixed salary of Rs. 724/- per month and they were not qualified trained teachers falling under para 6 of the Schedule 'F' of Bombay Primary Education Rules 1947. Further it was also stated that the Trust was managing two primary schools, one in Guajarati medium and the other in Hindi medium. Owing to paucity of funds and due to lack of requisite number of students, the schools had to be closed down for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97. Learned Counsel further submitted that the direction given by the Tribunal to pay the full salary and other benefits to respondents as per Govt. rules would cause considerable financial strain on the schools and might lead to the closing down of the schools. Learned Counsel further submitted that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were untrained and unqualified teachers and the direction given to reinstate those teachers are illegal. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Management had followed relevant rules before terminating the services of respondent Nos. 1 to 4.