Case Note & Summary
The writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa arose from a dispute over the appointment of a Computer Teacher in a school run by the Diocesan Society of Education. The petitioner, a Computer Teacher, claimed that she was appointed to a permanent post on probation after a regular selection process. The respondents included the State of Goa through the Secretary (Education), the Director of Education, the Headmaster of the school, the Diocesan Society of Education, and another teacher who was later selected. The facts show that an advertisement was published in the local daily O Heraldo on 31/10/2015 for Art (BFA), Physical Education, and Computer Teachers by the Diocesan Society of Education. The petitioner applied on 03/11/2015 and appeared for a written test and oral interview on 12/01/2016. Based on the selection committee's recommendation, she was appointed as Computer Teacher by order dated 16/02/2016, described as 'Order of Provisional Appointment On Probation' for two years with effect from 17/02/2016. She joined duty on 17/02/2016 at Our Lady of Lourdes High School, Valpoi. Despite her joining, no salary was paid for over a year because the appointment required approval from the Directorate of Education. She was informed that salaries would be claimed and paid only after government approval. A letter dated 01/03/2016 sought approval for her appointment. In September 2017, she was told that she would have to accept appointment on contract basis from the day she joined until November 2017, and the post would be re-advertised. The Director of Education issued an approval letter on 17/10/2017 for her appointment on contract basis. On 06/11/2017, she was compelled to accept two backdated orders dated 24/10/2017, one for temporary appointment as Computer Teacher and another for appointment on contract basis. A Blanket NOC had been issued on 06/03/2013 for recruitment of teachers in general, dispensing with the requirement of prior NOC for certain categories of schools including DSE schools. The petitioner contended that the appointment of Computer Teacher was not different from other teachers and that the Blanket NOC applied. She also argued that since no order was passed by the Education Officer within the prescribed period, the approval should be deemed granted. In February 2018, the Dy. Director of Education informed her that an NOC for the permanent post of Computer Teacher had been issued for academic year 2018-19. A fresh advertisement was published on 25/04/2018 and 03/05/2018. The petitioner applied again on 04/05/2018 and attended an interview on 24/05/2018. Another teacher was appointed to the permanent post on 23/06/2018, or as per a later paragraph, selected and appointed on 25/06/2018 and assumed charge on 26/06/2018. The petitioner sought a direction to respondent 2 to grant approval to her appointment on permanent basis pursuant to the appointment order dated 16/02/2016. She also prayed to set aside the two orders dated 24/10/2017, the approval order dated 17/10/2017, the re-advertisements, and the selection and appointment of respondent 5. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Goa School Education Acts and Rules. They also contended that the petition was barred by delay and laches because the contract had ended on 30/04/2018 and the fresh selection had taken place before the petition was filed in December 2018. The court heard the matter and reserved judgment on 30/03/2021, pronouncing judgment on 05/04/2021. However, the provided extract does not include the final analysis or decision. Therefore, the final holding, reasoning, and operative directions are not available in the text. The matter was admitted and notices were issued to the respondents, but no final order is mentioned.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment Approval - Deemed Approval - Goa School Education Acts and Rules, Not mentioned - Petitioner contended that as no order was passed by the Education Officer within a prescribed period provided in an Act, the approval is deemed to be granted to the appointment of the petitioner. The court was required to examine whether the initial probationary appointment dated 16/02/2016 remained valid and whether approval should be deemed granted. Held that the issue required consideration (Paras 6-7). B) Administrative Law - Validity of Temporary/Contract Orders - Challenge to Subsequent Appointment Orders - Goa School Education Acts and Rules, Not mentioned - Petitioner sought to set aside two orders dated 24/10/2017 appointing her as Computer Teacher on contract basis and the Director of Education approval order dated 17/10/2017. The court had to determine whether these orders were lawful when the initial appointment was on probation for a permanent post (Paras 6-7). C) Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Alternative Remedy - Goa School Education Acts and Rules, Not mentioned - Respondents contended that the petition should be dismissed because the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Goa School Education Acts and Rules. The court was required to consider whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of statutory appeal (Para 8). D) Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Delay in Filing Petition - Goa School Education Acts and Rules, Not mentioned - Respondents opposed the petition on the ground of delay and laches, pointing out that the petitioner's contract ended on 30/04/2018, fresh advertisement was published on 25/04/2018, she applied on 04/05/2018, interview was on 24/05/2018, respondent 5 was appointed on 25/06/2018 and assumed charge on 26/06/2018, while the petition was filed in December 2018 (Para 8). E) Selection and Appointment - Re-advertisement and Fresh Selection - Challenge to Selection of Another Teacher - Goa School Education Acts and Rules, Not mentioned - Petitioner challenged the re-advertisement dated 25/04/2018 and 03/05/2018 and the subsequent selection and appointment of respondent 5 to the permanent post of Computer Teacher. The court had to consider whether the re-advertisement and fresh selection were valid despite the petitioner's earlier appointment on probation (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to approval for permanent appointment as Computer Teacher based on the initial appointment order dated 16/02/2016; whether the subsequent orders dated 24/10/2017 appointing her on temporary/contract basis and the approval order dated 17/10/2017 should be set aside; whether the re-advertisement and selection of respondent 5 are valid; whether the petition is maintainable despite alternative remedy and delay.
Final Decision
Not mentioned - final judgment not available in provided extract.
Law Points
- Approval deemed granted if Education Officer fails to pass order within prescribed period
- alternative remedy of appeal under Goa School Education Acts and Rules
- delay and laches
- validity of temporary/contract appointment orders
- requirement of approval for salary
- blanket NOC for teacher recruitment
- re-advertisement and fresh selection challenged.
