PRATIBHA A AGRANAYAK Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions relate to the appointment of Headmaster of Damodar English High School (hereinafter referred to as "the said school") and, as such, the same are being disposed of by common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioner in Writ Petition 36/99 claims to be the senior-most Assistant Teacher in the said school and entitled to promotion to the post of Headmaster in terms of Rule 78 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules" ). On 1-5-1997, the vacancy of Headmaster had arisen in the said school and the Departmental Promotion Committee (D. P. C. for short) was convened to fill up the said post. It appears that the appointment was not finalised by the D. P. C. and in the meantime, on 9-6-1997, the charge of the post of Headmaster was handed over to respondent No. 3 Narayan Mierker. The petitioner Pratibha Agranayak filed Writ Petition No. 1/98 alleging that respondent No. 3 was not qualified to be appointed to the post. The said writ petition was disposed of by oral order dated 23-2-1998 by this Bench to which both of us were parties, by giving directions that the D. P. C. be convened within one month for the purpose of consideration of eligible candidates in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and who fall within the zone of consideration for the said post of Headmaster and the minutes of the D. P. C. shall be forwarded, within seven days of the conclusion of the D. P. C. , to the Director of Education for further necessary action. In pursuance of the said order, D. P. C. was convened on 20-4-98. The D. P. C. consisted of the Chairman of the Managing Committee of respondent No. 2, who was the Chairman of the D. P. C. and two members, one nominated by the Director of Education and the other nominated by the Management. The member who was nominated by the Director of Education walked away in the course of the D. P. C. meeting. Selection was, therefore, finalised by the two other members namely, the Chairman of the Managing Committee of respondent No. 2 who was the Chairman of D. P. C. and the Member of the D. P. C. nominated by the management. The case of the petitioner Pratibha Agranayak was considered. It was kept in sealed cover on account of an appeal filed by her against adverse remarks in her Confidential Report for the year 1995-96. Respondent No. 3 was recommended for promotion as Headmaster. In pursuance of the D. P. C. recommendation, respondent No. 3 was appointed as Officiating Headmaster of the said school with effect from 1-5-1998. The petitioner Pratibha Agranayak, therefore, seeks mandamus for filling up the post of Headmaster on regular basis and for striking down the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Officiating Headmaster on the ground that she is the senior-most Assistant Teacher and is entitled to the post of Headmaster being degree holder in education in terms of Rule 78 of the said Rules; whereas respondent No. 3 is not qualified for appointment in terms of Rule 78 of the said Rules, since he does not possess Degree in Education. Respondents No. 2 and 3, in Writ Petition 36/99 have taken the stand that reading of Rule 78 and Rule 86 of the said Rules makes it crystal clear that the seniority has to be given prime importance and respondent No. 3 being senior-most Assistant Teacher, is entitled to the promotion, since besides being senior-most, he was also found most meritorious amongst the candidates considered by the D. P. C. including the petitioner Pratibha Agranayak.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 also took the stand that in view of circular dated 28-5-1998 and Circular No. 5 dated 31-5-1999 issued by the Director of Education, it has been decided that two schools run by respondent No. 2 be merged and in view of the same, the post of Headmaster, in question, is not required to be filled and, as such, both the petitions have become infructuous.