Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.32 seconds)Section 34 in The Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 31 October, 2002
In light of the aforesaid principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) in the case of Brahmo Samaj Education Society and Ors. (supra) the Apex Court itself did not think if fit to opine on the validity of the Rules framed by the Government of State of West Bengal and left it open to the wisdom of the State Government to frame rules and regulations in accordance with what has been laid down in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra).
Section 2 in The Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 31 in The Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
The West Bengal College Teachers (Security Of Service) Act, 1975
The Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1972
The West Bengal College Service Commission Act, 1978
Brahmo Samaj Education Society & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 May, 2004
In light of the aforesaid principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) in the case of Brahmo Samaj Education Society and Ors. (supra) the Apex Court itself did not think if fit to opine on the validity of the Rules framed by the Government of State of West Bengal and left it open to the wisdom of the State Government to frame rules and regulations in accordance with what has been laid down in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra).
Atladara Kelavani Mandal And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 9 October, 2003
19. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the orders passed by the DEO based on Clause-64.3 of the Code are in violation of the statutory provisions, deserves scrutiny. It is true that as per Chapter-VI of the Act, there are various provisions relating to services in registered private secondary schools and as provided under Section 35, selection or appointment of the staff is to be regulated in the manner, as provided, by the Committee. Therefore, the contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioners is that there is no provision under the Act providing for absorption of surplus teacher, who is appointed in a different school by a different management. Similarly, it was also sought to be canvassed on behalf of the petitioners that if such surplus teachers are absorbed by the institution, it creates the relationship of employer and employee between the person concerned and the management, which cannot be fastened unless there is any authority on the part of the State. Prima facie, such contention appears to be attractive but, on a close scrutiny, it appears that if a school or an institution is to run without availability of the grant-in-aid facility, then, in that case, it would be within their right to contend that no such surplus staff or teacher can be ordered to be absorbed. As observed earlier, there is no compulsion to receive the grant-in-aid. If the institution is desirous to receive the grant-in-aid from the State, it has to abide by the terms and conditions of the Code, but, the provisions of the Code or insertion of any clause in the Code cannot be assailed on the ground that it violates the statutory provision of Section 35. Even otherwise also, the provisions of Section 35 providing for selection and appointment of staff would be applicable in a case where fresh appointments are to be made. Absorption of teachers, who are otherwise selected by regular selection process in different schools, cannot be said to be, as such, the fresh appointees, as envisaged under Section 35 of the Act. The question, which arises in these petitions, is not that whether the authority can fasten or compel the institution to absorb the other teacher appointed by different school in its own school, but, in my view, the question is if the school is desirous to continue with the grant-in-aid facility and if the Government, with a view to reduce the financial burden upon the public exchequer, has formulated the policy of accommodation and absorption of such surplus teachers or staff in other schools, can such action be maintained or not. Therefore, on close scrutiny of the aforesaid submission, it appears that various provisions of Sections 34 to 36 of the Act, including those regulating the service in registered private secondary school, are of no help to the petitioners in assailing the action of the State Government for insertion of Clause-64.3 of the Code. The said contention is, therefore also, ultimately found to be of no substance.