DIOCESAN SOCIETY OF EDUCATION Vs. UNIVERSITY OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner No. 3 was the Principal of the Petitioner No. 2-college, run by Petitioner No. 1-Society. In this Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, the Petitioners, inter alia, assail the action of withholding of consent by respondent No. 2-State of Goa by their letter no. 9/12/97-HE dated 3-5-2000 and consequently the non-payment of the salary of the Petitioner No. 3 for the period from 1-7-2001 to 31-5-2002 and that of respondent No. 1 university, in withdrawing the consent earlier given by their letter No. GU/b/xvr/12-1/2001/2796 dated 3-9-2001, for the re-appointment of Petitioner No. 1 Principal.

(2.) Some more facts are require to be stated to dispose of the present Petition.

(3.) The Petitioner No. 3, was appointed as a Principal by the other Petitioners on 20-6-1991 and he was to attain the age of superannuation i. e. 60 years on 5-3-2000. As the other Petitioners desired to re-employ the petitioner No. 3 well prior to his attaining the said age of superannuation on 31-3-2000, a letter dated 3-8-1999 was addressed by petitioner No. l to the respondent-University seeking their clarification whether it would be open to the University to re-employ superannuated Teachers since the age of retirement of Teachers including Principals, was 60 years. The respondent University by their letter dated 13-8-1999, informed the petitioner-Society that the re-employment of superannuated Teachers including Principals was governed by Statue SA-19 (xx). The petitioners under a mistaken belief that they would require permission of the Directorate of higher Education to re-employ the said principal, wrote letters to the University as well as to the Government seeking their approval to re-employ the said Principal for a further period of two years from June, 2000, in the light of the above said statute. Some correspondence then followed and later by letter dated 3-1-2000 (Annexure "e") , the Petitioner-Society was informed that the approval of the respondent-University was necessary or the re-employment of the said Principal and they were requested to obtain the same from the university in the first instance. The respondent-University by their letter dated 12-02-2000, (Annexure "g") , informed the petitioner-society that the Government of Goa as per its policy had informed that no extension or re-employment beyond the age of superannuation should be granted as a matter of course and that any extension/re-employment without the approval of the Government will not be eligible to receive salary grant on that count and further informed the Petitioner-Society to obtain necessary NOC approval from the Government. By letter dated 14-2-2000, the Petitioner-Society requested the respondent-University that the University should issue their NOC first as informed to them by the respondent-Government vide letter dated 3-1-2000 and subsequently by letter dated 15-2-2000 (Annexure "j") , the respondent-University conveyed its approval for re-employment of the said Principal with effect from 1-4-2000 till the last date of the second term of the academic year 2001-2002, subject to obtaining a NOC from the Government under the provision of statue SA-19 (xx). By letter dated 8-10-1999, (Annexure "k") , written on behalf of respondent-State, the respondent-University was asked either the re-employment of the said principal was approved by the Executive council and if the directives given vide letter dated 29-4-1997, were complied with. By letter dated 3-5-2000, (Annexure "l") , the respondent-State hardened its stand and informed the petitioner-Society that the government had not agreed for the re-employment of the said Principal for two years.