K B NAIK Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein who is the President of Shikshan Prasarak Sangh impugns the propriety and validity of the order dated January 3, 1989 passed by the first respondent appointing an Administrator, after taking over the management of a school called Sharada English High School, Durbhat conducted by Shikshan Prasarak Sangh, for a period of 3 years. The All Goa Secondary School Teachers' Organisation and a rival body of Shikshan Prasarak Sangh are the interveners.

(2.) The impugned order was passed by the first respondent, the State of Goa, invoking the provisions of section 20 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the alleged violation of Rule 42 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Education Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules").

(3.) The State Government passed the order in question on the grounds that various complaints were received against the petitioner regarding unauthorised shifting of the school to a different locality and its improper functioning in respect of which a show cause notice dated November 4, 1988 was served on the management of the school calling upon them to explain why the management of the school should not be taken over by the Government for a period of 3 years in the first instance so as to secure the proper management of the school in the public interest. The petitioner explained the matter by a reply dated November 21, 1988 and according to him the school was not shifted as alleged but some of the classes thereof were shifted because it was necessitated by the force of circumstances and for the safety of the students as the premises were unsuitable and required heavy repairs and the landlord also wanted bank the premises for which an eviction notice was served. It was further contended that the shifting of some of the classes had not prejudiced the interest of any other school or the students of the school in question. At any rate, according to the petitioner, he had not shifted the school to a different locality as the distance between the original premises and the new place was only about half a kilometre. The petitioner further contended that there was a rivalry between two groups in the village which was politically motivated and it was on account of the said rivalry that the impugned order was sought from the Government and was passed. These are also the contentions of the petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.