SHRIKANT SHIVA VENGURLEKAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND EX OFFICIO JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner passed B. Sc. Degree in the year 1990 and B. Ed. Degree in May 1992. He was appointed as Assistant Teacher in respondent No. 3 School with effect from 6th June 1992 on probation for two years. On 12th May 1993 respondent No. 3 School was given necessary permission by the Education Department to start the School. It appears that the School was functioning prior to that without any permission from the Education Department. On 19th April 1994 a fresh Order of appointment was issued in favour of the petitioner with reference to his application dated 4th June 1993 and the said appointment was also made on probation for two years. The approval for the post of undergraduate teacher in the said School was granted on 8th July 1983 and the approval for the appointment of the petitioner against the said post was granted by the Director of Education vide letter dated 10th March 1994. The approval for the appointment of the petitioner was granted with effect from joining in the School after interview and this date is stated to be 14th September 1993. The petitioner discharged the functions of Acting Headmaster upto 15th April 1996. By letter dated 5th February 1996 approval was granted by the Director of Education for the post of trained graduate teacher in the said School. On 20th February 1996 D. P. C. met and conducted interviews after advertising the post on 15th, 16th and 17th February 1996. The candidates which were considered for this appointment were called from the source of direct recruitment. In pursuance of the recommendation of the D. P. C. the appointment of respondent No. 4 was made. It is this appointment which is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(2.) THE grounds on which the challenge has been made may now be stated. The petitioner states that he had joined service with effect from 6th June 1992 and had also completed 3 years experience as on the date of the advertisement and according to Rule 86 (1) of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986 (hereinafter called the said Rules), every vacancy in an aided school shall be filled up by promotion, failing which, by direct recruitment in accordance with such Rules as may be framed by the Director of Education in this behalf and notified/circulated separately. According to the petitioner Rule 78 (6) of the Rules lays down minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of trained graduate teacher. The essential qualifications for direct recruits thereunder is a degree from recognised University and a degree in Education/teaching from a recognised University. However, in case of promotees, in addition to the qualification prescribed for the direct recruits, experience of 3 years in the undergraduate grade is required failing which an undergraduate teacher possessing a degree from a recognised University and a diploma in education and having 5 years experience out of which at least 3 years experience after obtaining diploma in education is also required to be considered. Thus, the petitioner claims that he fulfilled the qualifications for promotee candidate and the management could not resort to recruitment by calling applications from the direct recruits.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the petitioners has submitted before us that the experience of the petitioner is to be taken from the date of his initial appointment on 6th June 1992 and the case of the respondents is that the experience can be counted only from 14th September 1993. It is pertinent to note that the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 6th June 1992 was in a school for which no permission had been obtained from the Director of Education and it was only on 12th May 1993 that the permission was granted by the Education Department to the said school. The petitioner had himself applied afresh on 4th June 1993 and the post in question had been approved on 8th July 1993. It was thereafter that the interview for the said post was held and the petitioner was given fresh appointment order with effect from 14th September 1993. In these circumstances, the services rendered by the petitioners from 6th June 1992 till 13th September 1993 cannot be recognised as experience for the purpose of promotion since the said services were rendered by him in a school for which no permission had been granted by the Director of Education. Eventhough learned advocate for the petitioner drew our attention to the record where it is shown that the experience of one year of the petitioner was taken into account at the time of his appointment, yet, in view of our findings as above, the said period cannot be counted for the purpose of promotion. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the first contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner was fulfilling the requirements which are necessary for a promotee candidate.