SMITA SUBHASH BHAGAT Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner passed M. Com. in second Class from Goa University in April, 1991 and was appointed as Teacher Grade I in respondent no. 2 Holy trinity Higher Secondary School on purely temporary basis in the leave vacancy of one Mrs. Valsamma Mathai with effect from 16-9-1991 to 14-12-1991. Subsequently, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the School, the petitioner appeared for interview for the post of Teacher Grade I and vide Order dated 11-12-1992 she was appointed with effect from 9-11-1992 purely on temporary basis till the last working day of the academic year 1993-1994, or till the case of Mrs. Valsamma Mathai is finalised. The appointment of Mrs. Valsamma Mathai who had been earlier appointed to the said post was not approved by respondent no. 1 Director of education as she did not possess minimum qualification required for the post, as a result of which her services were ordered to be terminated with effect from June, 1989. The said Mrs. Valsamma Mathai filed Writ Petition No. 249/90 challenging her termination. The Writ Petition was admitted, but no interim relief was granted. For the academic year 1989-90 and partly for the academic year 1990-91 one yeshwant Sawant was appointed as Teacher Grade II to succeed mrs. Valsamma Mathai. In the meantime, vide Order dated 24-2-1992, issued under section 20 of the Goa, Daman and Diu school Education Act, 1984 the Management of the School was taken over by the Government for a period of three years. Initially Shri Angelo Pimenta, Principal, Government Higher secondary School, Baina, Goa was appointed as Authorised officer on behalf of respondent no. 1 to discharge the duties under the Act and the Rules, but subsequently Shri P. D. Kolambkar, Assistant Director of Education took over the charge from Shri Angelo Pimenta with effect from 18-2-1994. It is in these circumstances that the appointment Order dated 11-12-1992 appointing the petitioner purely on temporary basis was made. By communication dated 10-4-1993, the respondent no. 3, Principal of the School, informed the petitioner that the matter of her appointment was referred to the Authorised Officer who had informed that the appointment of the petitioner would cease from the last working day i. e. from 17-4-1993. The petitioner made representation dated 14-4-1993.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY vide Order dated 9-6-1993, the petitioner was once again appointed purely on temporary basis to the post of Teacher, Grade I with effect from 7-6-1993 till the last working day of the academic year 1993-94 or disposal of the Writ Petition of Mrs. Valsamma Mathai whichever is earlier. In pursuance of the said communication, the petitioner reported for duty to respondent no. 3 who asked her to produce medical certificate for employment since she was in advance stage of pregnancy. She produced certificate dated 15-6-1993 from Dr. Deepak D. Lawande, but was not permitted to join duty and the petitioner made a representation on 17-6-1993.

(3.) IN the meantime, an advertisement was issued in navhind Times dated 13-7-1993, advertising the said post of teacher Grade I for which interview was held on 20th July, 1993. The petitioner participated in this interview, but one miss Derina Dourado was selected and appointed to the post of Teacher, Grade I who is respondent no. 4 in this petition. The said respondent no. 4 joined duty on 26-7-1993. The petitioner represented to respondent no. 3 on 30-7-1993, as well as to the Minister for Education. Ultimately, the petitioner was appointed with effect from 1-2-1994 and her appointment was once again made purely on temporary basis till the last working day of the academic year 1993-1994, or till the disposal of the Writ Petition of Mrs. Valsamma Mathai whichever is earlier. The petitioner joined duty on 7-2-1994 and after joining filed this Writ Petition on the grounds that her initial appointment should have been on regular basis on probation in accordance with Rule 83 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules 1986 (hereinafter called the 1986 Rules) and that the Memorandum dated 10-4-1993, discontinuing her services as well as subsequent letter of fresh appointment dated 1-2-1994, were liable to be quashed. According to the petitioner, her appointment had to continue till the decision in the Writ petition filed by Mrs. Valsamma Mathai and the same could not be made under the Act or the Rules, restricted to the end of vacation each time. The petitioner therefore seeks directions of this Court to treat her appointment to the post of Teacher Grade I from 9-2-1992 as regular appointment and that she be paid salary for the period of artificial breaks resorted to by the respondents. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner started working in Pope John XIII higher Secondary School at Quepem as Teacher Grade I on full time basis with effect from 20th June, 1995.