PREMANAD G.PHADTE Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Padgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. D. Lawande, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Respondent no. 1, Mr. Bandodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 5.

(2.) The above Petition, inter alia, seeks for a direction to the Respondent nos. 1 to 4 by setting aside the promotion of the Respondent no. 5 w.e.f. the date on which the Respondent no. 5 was promoted to the post of Principal of the said School with consequential benefits.

(3.) Briefly, it is the contention of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was appointed to the post of Teacher Grade-I in Shree Damodar Higher Secondary School of Science, Margao, on 23.06.1988 and that he obtained training qualification in the form of Bachelor's Degree in the year 1990 within five years of his appointment as Teacher as Grade I and has been continuously in service in the said School from the date of his appointment. It is further contended that Shri Uday V. Ballikar, who was occupying the post of Principal of the said School, upon being appointed by direct recruitment in the year 1989, retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2014. The Petitioner being the Senior most Grade-I Teacher, vide letter dated 02.05.2014, addressed to the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the said School, requested that he be appointed as a Principal therein. But, however, such letter was refused to be accepted by the said Office. In response to the said letter of the Petitioner, he was served with the letter dated 04.06.2014 from the Chairman of the School Mam aging Committee, inter alia, stating that the Resolution had been taken by the Management of the said School on 28.05.2014 to deprive the Petitioner of the post of the Principal which was being enclosed along with the said letter. Pursuant to the recommendations of the DPC on 13.06.2014, the fifth Respondent came to be appointed as a Principal of the said School. The Director of Education vide its communication accorded approval to the said appointment on 25.06.2014. It is further contended by the Petitioner that there was no tangible or valid ground or reason for by-passing the Petitioner and appointing the Respondent no. 5 who is Junior to him against the post of Principal. It is also contended that the approval given by the Director of Education for such appointment is arbitrary and illegal and that the Respondent nos. 1 to 4 acted in contravention of the provisions of the School Education Rules by denying to the Petitioner promotion to the post of the Principal. Being aggrieved by such promotion of the Respondent no. 5 as the Principal of the said School, the Petitioner preferred a Writ Petition in this Court being Writ Petition no. 95 of 2015 challenging the Order of promoting the Respondent no. 5 to the said post. Vide Oral Judgment dated 27.07.2015, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner directing the Respondent no. 2 to re-examine the approval in terms of the averments made in the said affidavit on the basis of the reasons already submitted by the Respondent no. 3 in accordance with law. By communication dated 04.09.2015, the Respondent no. 2 wrote to the Respondent no. 3 that the approval earlier granted for the promotion of the Respondent no. 5 as Principal of the said School, has been withdrawn and the Respondent no. 3 was directed to conduct a fresh DPC after considering the Petitioner, being the senior most Teacher Grade-I as per the Goa School Education Act, 1984 and the School Education Rules, 1986. Despite of the approval granted having been withdrawn, the Respondent nos. 3 and 4 allowed the Respondent no. 5 to occupy the post of the Principal and function as such. It is further contended by the Petitioner that in view of the said de-approval of the Director, the School Management was to hold a review DPC and, as such, it could examine only admissible material which was before the earlier DPC. But, however, it is further contended that in view of the said directions of the Director, the question of holding a de-novo exercise of DPC on the basis of new material is illegal. It is further pointed by the Petitioner, that the Petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court in view of the arbitrary and illegal exercise undertaken by the Respondent no. 3 for the second time to get his grievance redressed. It is further contended that the Management of the School has fabricated documents for the purpose of denying rightful claim of the Petitioner. It is also pointed out that all the allegations do not reflect on the integrity as a Teacher of Grade-I of the Petitioner in the said School. It is further contended that though four memos were issued to the Petitioner during his career as a Teacher Grade-I, each of those Memos have been satisfactorily replied by the Petitioner. It is further pointed out that till the occurrence of the vacancy, they did not result in any Disciplinary Proceedings against the Petitioner before the DPC met for the first occasion. It is further pointed out that the fresh approval given by the Director of Education is without any valid and good reason and mechanically granted and, as such, it was incumbent upon the Director of Education to see that claim of the Petitioner being the Senior most Teacher was not bye-passed. It is further pointed out that the reason given by the DPC to bye-pass the candidature of the Petitioner are neither tangible and valid in law. It is further pointed out that the vacancy arose on 30.04.2014 and anything that occurred subsequent to that date could not have been considered by the DPC whilst assessing the relative merits of eligible candidates. But, however, the Management-Respondent no. 3 has been manufacturing circumstances mala fidely in order to malign the Petitioner. It is further contended that Respondent nos. 1 to 4 have gone contrary to the Order dated 27.07.2015 passed by this Court in the said earlier Writ Petition wherein the Respondent no. 2 was directed to re-examine the approval granted on the basis of the reasons already submitted by the Respondent no. 3.