Pallaviben Pareshkumar Jaiswal vs Principal & 3 on 10 June, 2016
3. Learned Advocate Mr.Hasurker appearing on behalf
of the petitioner has vehemently contended that the
Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the
applications. He has stated that the petitioner was
regularly working as Teacher in the School since
1991, and the Management was not paying regular
Page 7 of 14
HC-NIC Page 7 of 14 Created On Sat Jun 11 04:05:14 IST 2016
C/SCA/6683/2003 CAV JUDGMENT
salary as per the Rules and Regulations of the state
government. He has further contended that the
Management should not have terminated the service
of the petitioner in violation of the interim order of
the Tribunal, and the service of the petitioner should
have been regularized in view of her long service. It
is contended that since the procedure for terminating
a regular employee was followed in the case of the
petitioner by the School, the petitioner can be said to
be a regularly appointed employee. Reliance is also
placed on the judgement reported in 2002(2)GLR
2357 in case of Nalinkumar A Thakker vs State of
Gujarat on the issue that if an employee is given
employment knowing fully well that it is contrary to
the recruitment Rules, the employer is estopped from
contending that entry of employee is illegal and
contrary to law.