Bombay High Court Allows Promotion Claim of Peon to L.D.C. cum Librarian in Aided School — Circular and Education Rules Mandate Promotion from Grade D Employees. The court quashed direct appointment of an outsider and directed consideration of the petitioner's promotion under Circular dated 15/06/1987 read with Rule 79 of Goa School Education Rules, 1986.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Accused
  • 176
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Shri Krishna B. Naik, was appointed as a Peon (Grade D employee) in Smt. Chandrabhaga Tukoba Naik High School, Curchorem, Goa, on 19/09/1988. He passed his SSC examination in October 1990. On 15/06/1987, the Directorate of Education issued Circular No. 120 laying down Recruitment Rules for non-teaching staff, including the post of L.D.C. cum Librarian, under the Goa School Education Rules, 1986. The petitioner contended that as per the Circular read with Rule 79 of the Rules, Grade D employees were eligible for promotion to the post of L.D.C. cum Librarian. In October 2008, the school advertised the post of L.D.C. cum Librarian in the local newspaper 'Navhind Times' and subsequently appointed respondent no. 5, Shri Eshwar Shiva Naik, on 15/11/2008, with approval from the Directorate of Education on 04/06/2009. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to withdraw the advertisement, quash the appointment and approval, and direct the respondents to consider his promotion. The court heard arguments from all parties. The petitioner argued that the Circular and Rules mandated promotion from Grade D employees, and the school had bypassed this by directly recruiting an outsider. The respondents contended that the petitioner was not qualified or that the post was to be filled by direct recruitment. The court analyzed the Circular and Rule 79, noting that the Circular explicitly provided for promotion from Grade D employees to the post of L.D.C. cum Librarian. The court held that the school's action in advertising and appointing respondent no. 5 without considering the petitioner for promotion was illegal. The court allowed the petition, quashed the advertisement, the appointment letter of respondent no. 5, and the approval letter, and directed the school to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of L.D.C. cum Librarian in accordance with the Circular and Rules.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Promotion - Grade D to L.D.C. cum Librarian - Circular dated 15/06/1987 read with Rule 79 of Goa School Education Rules, 1986 - The petitioner, a Peon (Grade D employee), claimed promotion to the post of L.D.C. cum Librarian. The court held that the Circular and Rules mandate that promotion from Grade D employees must be considered before direct recruitment. The school's advertisement and appointment of respondent no. 5 were set aside, and the school was directed to consider the petitioner's promotion. (Paras 2-10)

B) Education Law - Recruitment Rules - Non-teaching staff - Circular dated 15/06/1987 - The Circular lays down Recruitment Rules for non-teaching staff including L.D.C. cum Librarian. The court interpreted that the Circular read with Rule 79 provides for promotion from Grade D employees. (Paras 3-8)

C) Administrative Law - Mandamus - Direction to consider promotion - The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the school to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of L.D.C. cum Librarian in accordance with the Circular and Rules, and quashed the appointment of respondent no. 5 and the approval granted by the Directorate of Education. (Paras 9-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner, a Grade D employee (Peon), is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of L.D.C. cum Librarian in terms of the Circular dated 15/06/1987 read with Rule 79 of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986, and whether the direct appointment of respondent no. 5 to that post is illegal

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the advertisement published on 08/10/2008, the appointment letter of respondent no. 5 dated 15/11/2008, and the approval letter dated 04/06/2009, and directed the school to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of L.D.C. cum Librarian in accordance with the Circular dated 15/06/1987 and Rule 79 of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986.

Law Points

  • Promotion from Grade D to L.D.C. cum Librarian is governed by Circular dated 15/06/1987 and Rule 79 of Goa School Education Rules
  • 1986
  • which mandate consideration of eligible Grade D employees for promotion before direct recruitment
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015:BHC-GOA:649-DB

Writ Petition No. 632 of 2008

2015-03-09

F. M. REIS, K. L. WADANE

2015:BHC-GOA:649-DB

Mr. V. P. Thali for petitioner, Ms. Priyanka Kamat for respondents 1-2, Mr. H. D. Naik for respondents 3-4, Mr. D. J. Pangam for respondent 5

Shri Krishna B. Naik

State of Goa, Director of Education, Jan Utkarsh Shikshan Saunstha, Smt. Chandrabhaga Tukoba Naik High School, Shri Eshwar Shiva Naik

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking mandamus to direct school to consider promotion of Grade D employee to L.D.C. cum Librarian and to quash direct appointment of another candidate

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus to withdraw advertisement, quash appointment of respondent no. 5 and approval, and direct consideration of his promotion

Filing Reason

Petitioner, a Peon (Grade D employee), claimed he was entitled to promotion to the post of L.D.C. cum Librarian under Circular dated 15/06/1987 and Rule 79 of Goa School Education Rules, 1986, but the school advertised and appointed an outsider without considering him

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of L.D.C. cum Librarian in terms of Circular dated 15/06/1987 read with Rule 79 of Goa School Education Rules, 1986 Whether the appointment of respondent no. 5 and the approval granted by the Directorate of Education are illegal and liable to be quashed

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that Circular dated 15/06/1987 read with Rule 79 mandates promotion from Grade D employees to L.D.C. cum Librarian, and the school bypassed this by direct recruitment Respondents contended that the petitioner was not qualified or that the post was to be filled by direct recruitment

Ratio Decidendi

The Circular dated 15/06/1987 read with Rule 79 of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986, provides for promotion from Grade D employees to the post of L.D.C. cum Librarian, and the school must consider eligible Grade D employees for promotion before resorting to direct recruitment.

Judgment Excerpts

The above writ petition, inter alia, seeks for the writ of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 4, School to withdraw with immediate effect and forthwith the advertisement published in the local newspaper 'Navhind Times' on 08/10/2008. On 15/06/1987, Circular No. 120 is issued by the Directorate of Education thereby laying out Recruitment Rules for non-teaching staff, including the post of L.D.C. cum Librarian in terms of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986 (the Rules).

Procedural History

Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 632 of 2008 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa seeking mandamus and quashing of appointment. The court heard arguments and delivered judgment on 09/03/2015.

Acts & Sections

  • Goa School Education Rules, 1986: Rule 79
  • Societies Registration Act, 1860:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Promotion Claim of Peon to L.D.C. cum Librarian in Aided School — Circular and Education Rules Mandate Promotion from Grade D Employees. The court quashed direct appointment of an outsider and directed consideration of the ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Maintainability of Civil Suit Challenging MRTP Act Notice — Preliminary Issue Under Section 9A CPC Decided in Favor of Plaintiff. Court holds that bar under Section 149 of MRTP Act does not apply to notices under Section 5...