DOMINAL ARUJO Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy in this petition centers round Note II incorporated under sub-rule (5) of Rule 80 of the Goa, Daman and Diu school Education Rules 1986 for short "the Education Rules" made under section 29 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984. According to the petitioner Trained Graduate Teachers is a distinct and separate category from other categories and the post of a Supervisor in a school can only be filled by drawing a Teacher from that category and he being senior to respondent No. 5 was entitled to be considered for the post

(2.) THIS controversy arises from the following facts : the Missionary Society of St. Francis Xavier also known as Society of Pilar conducts and imparts education in secondary education known as fr. Agnolo High School which is a Government-aided School. This society is the fourth respondent in this petition, respondent No. 3 being its Principal. The respondent No. 5, a graduate trained teacher is presently holding the post of Supervisor in the same school. The petitioner joined the School as an Under-graduate Teacher in the year 1965 and improved upon his qualifications by obtaining Diploma Education (Dip. Ed.) in the year 1970. During the course of his employment the petitioner became a graduate in the year 1974 but however was placed in the graduate scale in the year 1977. The respondent No. 5 joined Fr. Agnolo High School as a teacher in the graduate scale in the year 1972 and improved upon his qualification as a trained teacher on having passed b. Ed. in the year 1978. In April, 1986 a senior teacher by name Paixao Rodrigues holding the post of a Supervior retired. The respondent No. 5 was elevated to the post of Supervisior by the School authority duly approved by the director of Education (Respondent No. 2 ). The petitioner made a communication dated 29th June, 1987 to the Director of Education, laying a claim to the post of Supervisor on retirement of Shri Paixao Rodrigues. Having had no reply to this representation he made second representation on 7th July, 1987 followed by another one dated 14th July, 1987. By the letter dated 3rd August, 1987 Assistant Director of Education informed the petitioner that his claim for the post of Supervisor could not be considered on the ground that the petitioner is not the seniormost teacher in the graduate category in terms of Note II to Rule 80 (5) of the Education rules. After having learnt that Respondent No. 5 was appointed as supervisor in the School the petitioner wrote to the third respondent to furnish copies of the correspondence exchanged between the Principal and director of Education on the subject. The petitioner repeated such request but without success. By his letter dated 7th October, 1987 the principal informed the petitioner regarding appointment of fifth respondent as Supervisor. It is this appointment of Respondent No. 5 that is now challenged in this petition.

(3.) MR. M. B. D'costa, learned counsel for the petitioner on placing reliance on sub-rule (5) of Rule 80 of the Education Rules, 1986 contended that the Supervisor can only be drawn from the category of "trained graduate Teacher" based on seniority however subject to fitness and this according to him is clear from the Note incorporated below that rule. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 80 reads thus : -" (5 ). . . . . . . . . . . .