ALEYAMA MATHAI ALMEIDA Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioner in writ Petition no. 202 of 1998/respondent no.3 in Writ Petition no. 206 of 1998, a Teacher, is aggrieved by the act of denial of promotion to her as a Head Mistress or a head of the School of respondent no.3/petitioner in Writ Petition no. 206 of 1998. She has prayed for a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, direction and order commanding respondent no.3, to promote the petitioner to the post of Head Mistress in the School of respondent no. 3, with effect from 1st May 1985.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, she was employed as an Assistant Teacher in the School which is aided by the State Government, from 1965. According to her, she was the senior most Teacher in the School and she was entitled to be promoted to the post of Head Mistress in the year 1981, when vacancy in that post arose. At that time, she was superseded and one Mrs. Irene Ferreira, who was junior to the petitioner, was promoted as Head Mistress of the School. She approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition to challenge the promotion given to the said Mrs. Ferreira. During the pendency of the petition, the said Mrs. Ferreira reached the age of superannuation and, therefore, nothing survived in the said petition, which was rejected. According to the petitioner, even thereafter the school management did not consider her claim to be promoted to the post of Head Mistress on the specious ground that there were adverse remarks in her confidential record. Instead of promoting the petitioner, the school management promoted respondent no. 4, who was also much junior to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, as and when vacancy in the post of Head Master arose, on several occasions, her claim was rejected and the Directorate of Education on all the occasions refused to approve the decision of the school management to promote the other Teacher, except the petitioner. On 1st May, 1985, the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended the candidature of Shri Conception Almeida and not the petitioner. This proposal was turned down by the Department on the ground that the petitioner was the senior -most trained graduate Teacher and that she was by -passed without tangible reasons. It further appears that on 20th December, 1985, the Departmental Promotion Committee again considered the claim of the petitioner and the said Shri Conception Almeida and repeated its recommendation by recording its reasons. The Department again did not accept the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. It further appears that on 22nd August, 1986, a third Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted to consider the promotion to the post of Head Master. The Departmental Promotion Committee again considered the claim of the petitioner as well as the said Shri Conception Almeida and recorded its reasons not to grant promotion to the petitioner.

(3.) THE Directorate of Education appears to have been irked by the non -compliance of the orders given by the Director to promote the petitioner. It imposed a penalty cut in the maintenance grant of 25%. By an Order dated 5th December, 1990, the Administrative Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Management and held that the post of Head Master was correctly filled in and no fault could be found with the same. The Tribunal quashed and set aside the action of the Department in imposing penalty without hearing the Management. It further appears that after a period of two years, the Department issued a Show Cause Notice as to why the management of the school should not be taken over for not giving promotion to the petitioner.