Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (4) TMI 619

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ. JUDGMENT C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appeal arises out of a common judgment dated September 10, 2003 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Goa Bench) in two petitions being Writ Petition Nos. 202 206 of 1998. 3. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that Mrs. Aleyamma Mathai Almeida-appellant herein, was appointed as Assistant Teacher in St. Anthony s High School, Assolna Salcete, Goa in the year 1965. A vacancy of Head Master arose in the said School in 1981. One Mrs. Irane Ferreira, an Assistant Teacher, much junior to the appellant was appointed as the Head Mistress bypassing the appellant s claim to the said post. Aggrieved by the action, the appellant approached the High Court .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on by the Director of Education, DPC was reconvened and again it selected respondent No.4 for the post of Head Master. The Director of Education once again rejected the recommendation made by the DPC on April 25, 1986. By a letter dated February 24, 1987, the Director of Education asked respondent No.3-School to fill up the post of Head Master on regular basis by following the prescribed procedure within 30 days of the communication failing which, action for imposing cut in maintenance grant or derecognizing the School as per Rules would be taken. In spite of such letter, the management of respondent No.3-School did not take any action within stipulated period. On September 22, 1987, the Director of Education imposed penalty of 25% cut in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erest. Reply was submitted by respondent No.3-School on May 8, 1993. 6. On June 10, 1994, the Government passed an order taking over the management of respondent No.3-School for a period of three years. Respondent No.3 challenged the said order by filing a writ petition which was allowed and the order of the Government was set aside. The appellant sought intervention in the said writ petition which was dismissed. Her Special Leave Petition before this Court was disposed of directing the Education Department to look into her grievance and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 7. In the light of the direction issued by this Court, the Director of Education asked respondent No.3-School to reconvene the meeting of DPC for fillin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Petition No. 206 of 1998 against the order of Director of Education. Meanwhile, however, the appellant retired in 1998. Both the writ petitions came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court and by the order impugned in the present appeals, they were disposed of. The High Court did not consider the issue as to the minority status of respondent No.3-School and held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition filed by the appellant was liable to be dismissed, whereas the writ petition of the School Management was required to be allowed. Accordingly, Rule was discharged in the petition filed by the appellant petitioner and Rule was made absolute in the petition filed by the School Management. The appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dent No.4. The grievance was that the High Court ought to have decided all the points including the status of respondent No.3-School. 11. In our opinion, considering the checkered history of the litigation and long period it has taken, it would be appropriate if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court to decide all questions including the question as to the status of respondent No.3- School. It has also come on record that the appellant has retired in 1998 and the question of appointing her as Head Mistress now does not arise. The case has to be considered on the basis of the relevant material and in accordance with law. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates