YVONNE MARIA D’ SOUZA Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the Orders dated 5. 6. 1996, 22. 5. 2000 and 19. 3. 2001 and further a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 to implement the order of reinstatement dated 10. 4. 2000. The petition further seeks direction against the said respondent s to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages from 10. 6. 1996.

(2.) Briefly, the facts which are relevant for the disposal of this petition are as under: on 24. 7. 1993, the petitioner was appointed as Full Time Grade I Teacher for the vocational course of Office Management in the scale of 2640- 60- 2750- 75- 2900 by Nath Pai Memorial Eduction Society in Dr. Ambedkar Higher Secondary School, Colvale, Bardez, Goa. The said appointment was temporary for a period of one year only. Thereafter, on 5. 6. 1995, the petitioner was reappointed as Grade I Teacher (Full Time) for the vocational course of Office Management on the salary of Rs. 1700/- per month, again on temporary basis for a period of one year. On 5. 6. 1996, pursuant to the application, the petitioner was again appointed as a Double Part Time Vocational Teacher on fixed pay of Rs. 2000/- per month with effect from 10. 6. 96. The appointment was again purely temporary for the academic year 1996-97. The petitioner was again appointed for the academic years 1997- 98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 as Double Part Time Teacher on fixed monthly salary of Rs. 2000/ -. On 22. 5. 2000, the Management issued an order relieving the petitioner and other two teachers from their services from 22. 4. 2000. In the said order, it was stated that the said teachers could apply if they wish to be considered for the said posts for the academic year 2000-01 and that they would be given priority while filling up the posts. However, prior to issuance of the said relieving order, the petitioner vide represent at ion dated 12. 1. 2000 had represented against the appointment of the petitioner as Double Part Time Teacher and sought a direction against the Management to pay all the arrears due and payable to her. There was an inquiry pursuant to the said representation and by communication dated 10. 4. 2000 addressed to the Principal of the Higher Secondary School, the Dy. Director of Education (Voc. ) directed the Principal to reinstate the petitioner as Full Time Teacher with effect from 10. 6. 1996 and further directed the Management to pay the petitioners all arrear s of pay and allowances in the pay scale of 1640- 2900. The Principal of the Higher Secondary School made a representation to the Dy. Director of Education bringing to his notice that the petitioner was not terminated, but she was appointed as Double Part Time Teacher with effect from 1996. Thereafter, the very same Dy. Director of Education, vide communication dated 19. 3. 2001 addressed to the petitioner, informed the petitioner that her request to reinstate her as Full Time Teacher could not be considered since she had raised the objection after four years and since her claim was belated. By the said communication, the petitioner was advised to take recourse to Section 22 of the Goa School Education Rules, 1984 if she had any grievance against his decision. Challenging the action of the Management appointing the petitioner as Double Part Time Teacher as well as the communication dated 19. 3. 01, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) The stand of the respondent s No. 3 and 5 as disclosed in the Affidavit filed by Mr. Vinayak Naik is that the appointments of teachers for vocational courses was to be done every year as directed by the Director of Education vide Communication dated 15. 5. 1995 addressed to the Principal of the School. The said communication also discloses that the appointment of the staff and the teacher s for the said courses was to be upto the end of a particular academic year and that too on temporary basis, without claiming any further extension, regularization and confirmation. It is further the case of the respondents No. 3 and 5 that in terms of the directions issued by the Director (Education) , all the appointments have been made on yearly basis and the petitioner was appointed as Double Part Time Teacher from 1996. Since the petitioner got married in February, 1995 and since her newly born child was suffering from peculiar type of sickness, the petitioner was on maternity leave from 9th December, 1995 to 7th March, 1996 and her absence was causing a considerable loss to the student s who were to appear for the Board Examination and it was at her request that she was appointed as Double Part Time Teacher which was accepted by the petitioner without any protest, not only for the academic year 1996-97 but till the end of academic year 1999-2000. It is further the case of the respondents No. 3 and 5 that in 2000, the petitioner did not apply and therefore, there is no question of considering her for appointment from the academic year 2000. According to the respondents No. 3 and 5, the petitioner was not terminated from 1996, but, on the contrary, without any protest she worked as Double Part Time Teacher from 1996 till 2000.