RAMESH S SHIRODKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner while being in service of the government of Goa and while holding the post of Head Master, which post, is borne on General Service Group A Gazetted, seeking a relief of quashing of the promotions granted to the respondent nos. 3 to 17 to the post of Principal of Government Higher Secondary Schools (XIth and XIIth standard or its equivalent ). The petitioner was initially appointed as a Teacher, Grade I w. e. f. 15. 09. 1978. The petitioner had put in satisfactory service and thus was granted promotion to the post of Head Master on adhoc basis vide Order of promotion dated 20. 06. 1991. The petitioner was served adverse CRs for the year 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. Against the adverse CRs communicated to the petitioner, he had made representations. The representations made by the petitioner were rejected by the Competent Authority viz. the Director of education and, as such, the adverse CRs were capable of being acted upon. However, the petitioner was granted regularization and confirmation in the post of Head Master by an Order dated 17. 11. 1997 on recommendations of the Public Service Commission. It is thus clear that the petitioner had shown improvement after he was served with adverse CRs during the aforesaid years and hence was granted regularization/confirmation on 17. 11. 1997. The next promotional post in the hierarchy of Education Department is the post of principal in the Government Higher Secondary Schools. The petitioner was aspiring for the said promotion as he was very much eligible and qualified for being promoted to the said post. In the year 2002, it was realized by the government that though many posts were lying vacant in the cadre of principals in the Government Higher Secondary Schools, no eligible Officers were available. In view of the fact that one of the conditions of eligibility for appointment to the post of Principal in Government Higher Secondary schools, was to possess an experience of eight years after regulatization in the feeder cadre i. e. the post of Head Master of Secondary Schools, a policy decision was reached by the State to relax the requirement of the Rule and to count the period of adhoc service together with regular service in the feeder cadre for determining the eligibility of experience. In tune with the said decision, cases of the candidates were considered and six Head Masters came to be promoted in the year 2002 to the next higher post of Principals in government Higher Secondary Schools on adhoc basis. The petitioner's name was at serial no. 3 in the seniority list of candidates, however, the petitioner was not considered for grant of promotion only for the reason that there were adverse CRs against the petitioner for the year 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. Thus, when promotions were made on 30. 01. 2002, the petitioner though otherwise eligible and qualified, was not considered for promotion on the ground that he was unfit for being so promoted on account of the adverse CRs. referred to hereinabove. Yet, again in the year 2003, when the Government considered the cases for grant of promotion, the petitioner was left out. In the list of candidates for grant of promotions in the year 2003, the petitioner was at serial no. 1. The Committee which considered the question of grant of promotion was headed by the Under Secretary, School education. Perusal of the notes prepared by the Committee headed by the under Secretary dated 31. 01. 03, reveals thus :

(2.) THE petitioner, who is appearing in person, has contended that though the promotions granted to the candidates are termed as adhoc, the same are based on considerations on merit, suitability, experience and eligibility. The said promotions are later on regularised. The promotions granted to the candidates in the year 2002 and 2003, though termed as adhoc, were in fact regular and the petitioner's claim to the promotional post, ought to have been considered. Touching the merit of the decision, it is submitted that stale adverse CRs recorded even prior to grant of regularization in the feeder cadre cannot form a basis for refusing to consider the petitioner's claim for the promotional post.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, has placed on record an affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 today in the Court together with accompanying documents. Perusal of the relevant documents clearly reveal that the petitioner was served with adverse crs and the petitioner had made representation to the competent Authority for expunging the CRs communicated by the Reporting Authority. The competent Authority has directed the adverse remarks to be maintained in the service records. What is relevant to note is that the petitioner has been conferred with the status of regular promotee in the year 1997. The effect of granting regularization to the petitioner in the year 1997 would be that the adverse CRs prior thereto would be taken to be erased and could not have been taken into account for refusing promotion to the Petitioner in the year 2003.