Bombay High Court Allows School to Dispense with Probationary Teacher's Services Without Prior Approval Under Rule 83 of Goa School Education Rules, 1986. Director of Education's Refusal to Grant Permission for Dispensation of Services of Probationary Teacher Quashed as Rule 83 Does Not Apply to Probationary Employees.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 72
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, an educational institution, challenged an order dated 21 September 2017 passed by the Director of Education under Rule 83 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986, refusing permission to dispense with the services of respondent No.3, a Physical Education Teacher on probation. The respondent No.3 was appointed on probation on 17 January 2014 after an advertisement and provisional appointment. Subsequently, the petitioner issued memorandums and initiated proceedings against respondent No.3, and by letter dated 2 November 2016 requested the Director's approval for dispensation. The Director refused. The High Court, after hearing counsel, held that Rule 83 does not require prior approval for probationary teachers and that the Director's refusal was without jurisdiction. The court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order and directing that the petitioner may proceed in accordance with law.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Probationary Teacher - Dispensation of Services - Rule 83 of Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986 - The issue was whether prior approval of the Director of Education is required for dispensing with services of a probationary teacher - The Court held that Rule 83 does not apply to probationary teachers and the Director cannot refuse permission - The impugned order was quashed (Paras 2-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Director of Education can refuse permission under Rule 83 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986 for dispensation of services of a probationary teacher?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21 September 2017 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner may proceed in accordance with law.

Law Points

  • Rule 83 of Goa
  • Daman and Diu School Education Rules
  • 1986 does not require prior approval for dispensation of services of a probationary teacher
  • probationary teacher can be terminated without prior approval
  • Director of Education cannot refuse permission for dispensation of services of probationary teacher
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (03) 191

Writ Petition No.1094 of 2017

2018-03-28

N.M. Jamdar, Prithviraj K. Chavan

2018:BHC-GOA:841-DB

Ms. K. Pednekar for Petitioners, Mr. D. Lawande (Advocate General) with Mr. A. Jamadar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. D. Pangam for Respondent No.3

Royale Secondary School and Xavier Afonso Memorial Institute

State of Goa, Directorate of Education, and Tushar Gajanand Narvekar

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging order of Director of Education refusing permission to dispense with services of probationary teacher

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 21 September 2017 and permission to dispense with services of respondent No.3

Filing Reason

Director of Education refused permission under Rule 83 for dispensation of services of probationary teacher

Previous Decisions

Director of Education passed order dated 21 September 2017 refusing permission

Issues

Whether the Director of Education can refuse permission under Rule 83 for dispensation of services of a probationary teacher?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that Rule 83 does not apply to probationary teachers and prior approval is not required Respondents argued that the Director's order was valid under Rule 83

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 83 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986 does not require prior approval of the Director of Education for dispensation of services of a probationary teacher; the Director's refusal was without jurisdiction.

Judgment Excerpts

The Petitioner, an education institution, has challenged the order passed by the Director of Education dated 21 September 2017 under Rule 83 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules of 1986. We have heard Ms. K. Pednekar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. D. Lawande, learned Advocate General for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. D. Pangam, learned counsel for Respondent No.3.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed writ petition challenging order of Director of Education dated 21 September 2017; rule was issued and made returnable forthwith; respondents waived service; taken up for final disposal.

Acts & Sections

  • Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986: Rule 83
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Amendment of Plaint and Impleadment of Parties in Property Dispute — Amendment Sought Before Commencement of Trial Allowed as No Prejudice Caused. Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits liberal amendment before trial; impleadment und...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Appellate Order Denying GST Refund on Export of Services to Overseas Entity, Holds Non-Submission of FIRCs Not Fatal When Alternative Proof Exists. The Court Rules that Services Provided on Principal-to-Principal Basis...