Jan-Utkarsh-Shikshan Saunstha Represented by Ashok K. Naik and 2 Ors v. The State of Goa Thr. the Chief Secretary and 8 Ors

Suchitra IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.326/2024

¶1JAN-UTKARSH-SHIKSHAN SAUNSTHA registered society at Curchorem Goa, Registered under serial No.32/78 Under Societies Act 1860 Represented herein by the Chairman, Ashok K. Naik, resident of Pontemol, Kurchorem, Goa.

2.

THE

SCHOOL

MANAGING COMMITTEE, Smt. Chandrabhaga Tukoba High School Curchorem, Quepem-Goa.

3.

THE

SCHOOL

MANAGING COMMITTEE, Smt. Chandrabhaga Tukoba Higher Secondary School Curchorem, Quepem-Goa. Versus

¶1STATE OF GOA, hrough the Chief Secretary Porvorim-Goa

¶2THE DIRECTOR, Directorate of Education, Porvorim-Goa.

¶3MR. SATYEN NAIK, Lower Division Clerk, Smt. Chandrabhaga Tukoba Naik Higher Secondary School, Curchorem, Quepem Goa.

¶4MRS. BEENA BICCU NAIK DESSAI, Teacher Grade-I, Smt. Chandrabhaga Tukoba Naik Higher Secondary School, Curchorem, Quepem Goa.

¶5SMT. SUKSHMA KAKODKAR, Teacher Grade-I, Smt. Chandrabhaga Tukoba Naik Secondary School, Curchorem, Quepem Goa.

¶6MR. VICTOR DANIEL, MTS/Lab Attendant, Smt. Chandrabhaga Tukoba Naik Higher Secondary School, Curchorem, Quepem Goa.

… PETITIONERS

2024:BHC-GOA:934-DB

¶7MISS. VIDYA VASANT NAIK, Teacher Grade-I, Smt. Chandrabhaga Tukoba Naik Higher Secondary School, Curchorem, Quepem Goa.

¶8MRS. KANCHAN DHAIFODE, Trained Under-Graduate Teacher, Smt. Chandrabhaga Tukoba Naik Secondary School Curchorem, Quepem Goa.

¶9MR. HANUMANT VAST, Resident of Pontemol, Curchorem, Goa. … RESPONDENTS Mr Chaitanya Padgaonkar with Ms V. Mahato, Advocates for the Petitioners. Mr Shubham Priolkar, Additional Government Advocate for the State. CORAM: M. S. SONAK & VALMIKI MENEZES, JJ. Reserved on: Pronounced on: 8th APRIL 2024 10th APRIL 2024 ORDER: (Per M. S. Sonak, J.)

¶1Heard Mr Chaitanya Padgaonkar with Ms V. Mahato for the Petitioners and Mr Shubham Priolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶2he petitioners who are presently managing Smt. Chandrabhaga Tukoba Naik Secondary School (said school), question the approvals the Director of Education granted to the appointments of respondents no.3 to 8 in 2019-2020.

¶3he record shows that there were disputes between the members of the managing committee of the Jan Utkarsh Shikshan Sanunstha and the said school inter se. At the time, respondents, no.3 to 8, were appointed, and the Director of Education granted approvals for their appointments to various posts in the said school; one, Mr Hanumant Vast, was the Chairman of the managing committee. After Mr Hanumant Vast, the present managing committee members took charge.

¶4he petitioners represented to the Director of Education that there were some illegalities in the appointments of respondents no.3 to 8 and, upon such representation/complaints being rejected, have instituted the present petition. In efect, this petition has been instituted almost four to ive years after the Director of Education approved the appointments of respondents no.3 to 8.

¶5Apart from the delay, it is apparent that the petitioners' real grouse is against Mr Hanumant Vast (ninth respondent) and the appointments made during the ninth respondent's tenure. his appears to be a dispute between the two regimes, and the private respondents are sought to be targeted to settle scores with the previous regime. he petitioners have combined diferent causes of action, and the petition sufers from multifariousness.

¶6Insofar as the third respondent, who was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC), is concerned, the petitioners' grievance is that though the Goa School Education Rules, 1986 do not prescribe any qualiications for the post of LDC, the minimum qualiications prescribed by the Government for the post of LDC in Government run higher secondary schools is a Higher Secondary School Certiicate, computer literacy and knowledge of Konkani. he petitioners contend that in the advertisement issued on 15.07.2019, the qualiications prescribed were that of B.Com. with competency in MS Word and Tally. he petitioners have also raised some doubts about the third respondent belonging to the Other Backward Class (OBC). Further, the petitioners have alleged that the third respondent was a relative of the ninth respondent.

¶7hus, the petitioners themselves contend that the Goa School Education Rules had not prescribed any qualiications for the post of LDC. Without any elaboration, the petitioners suggest that the Government Rules for the post of LDC should have been adopted to ill the post. he petitioners point out that the minimum qualiications prescribed by the Government for LDCs in Government-run schools were a Higher Secondary School Certiicate, computer literacy and knowledge of Konkani. Here, admittedly, the advertisement provided a graduation qualiication (B.Com.) and computer literacy, i.e. MS Word and Tally. he qualiications prescribed were, therefore, more than the minimum prescribed for LDCs in the Government schools, assuming that such qualiications apply to private-aided schools.

¶8he statement that the third respondent was a relative of the ninth respondent is too vague a statement to be acted upon at this point in time. he selection committee, inter alia, comprised representative of the Directorate of Education. Finally, the Director of Education has approved the selection committee's recommendations. herefore, based upon the grounds urged, no case is made out to interfere with the appointment or approval of appointment of the third respondent at this point in time.

¶9he petitioners raised doubts about whether the third respondent belongs to the OBC category. No pleadings suggest the reasons for such belief or the reasons for such doubt. By simply expressing doubts, the appointments made and approved by the Director cannot be interfered with at this point in time. For all these years, the petitioners or its members have taken no steps to cancel this respondent's caste certiicate. herefore, for the present, and based on the vague pleadings in the petition, no case is made out warranting interference with the third respondent's appointment at the behest of the petitioners.

¶10Regarding the appointment of the fourth respondent to the post of Teacher Grade-I, the petitioners have pointed out that by advertisement dated 03.04.2018, two posts were advertised. Of the two posts, one was reserved for the OBC category and the other for the candidates with physical disabilities (PWDs). he petitioners admit that after conducting a skill test, the fourth respondent was appointed as Teacher Grade-I in Physics on 04.06.2018 against the post of PWDs because no PWDs had applied.

¶11hough there is no clarity in the pleadings, it appears this appointment was up to the end of the academic year. On 04.07.2019, a fresh NOC was sought and obtained to dereserve this post. Based on this NOC, an advertisement was issued on 15.07.2019 to ill the said post as an un-reserved one. he selection committee recommended the fourth respondent, and based on such recommendations, the fourth respondent was appointed as Teacher Grade-I in Physics in December 2019. he Director of Education vide communication dated 28.07.2020 approved this appointment.

¶12he petitioners contend that there was some law in the de-reservation process. here is no allegation about the fourth respondent not being qualiied to be appointed as a Teacher Grade-I in Physics. he selection committee recommended the appointment of the fourth respondent. One of the selection committee members was a representative of the Directorate of Education. Finally, the Director of Education approved the appointment.

¶13To now allege that there was some inirmity in the NOC issued by the Director for illing up this post as an unreserved post cannot be grounds to set aside the fourth respondent's appointment at this point in time. he said NOC is also not challenged in the petition. his is not a case where some candidate with physical disability has questioned the de-reservation process or the NOC granted by the Director of Education in 2019. Based on such contentions, no case is made to interfere with the appointment of the fourth respondent at the behest of the present petitioners.

¶14he ifth respondent was appointed as a Teacher Grade-I in Accountancy in July 2020. he advertisement was in accordance with the rules, but the petitioners belatedly allege that the ifth respondent's M.Com. was not in Accountancy, and that out of the eight subjects, only one of the subjects was in Accountancy. he petitioners also allege that one Vipul Sawant was more meritorious than the ifth respondent. On this basis, the petitioners allege that the selection committee erred in recommending ifth respondent for appointment and the Director of Education erred in approving the ifth respondent's appointment as Teacher Grade-I in Accountancy.

¶15Apart from the belated challenge, there is hardly any material to hold that the ifth respondent was not qualiied to be appointed Teacher Grade-I in Accountancy. he selection committee, which comprised a representative of the Directorate of Education, recommended the ifth respondent. he managing committee accepted this recommendation, and the ifth respondent was duly appointed in 2020. he Director of Education, upon scrutinising the material, approved the appointment of the ifth respondent.

¶16Mr Vipul Sawant never challenged the ifth respondent's appointment. he petitioners are, therefore, not the proper relators to question the appointment of the ifth respondent at this belated stage based upon grounds that are not even properly elaborated in the petition. Accordingly, no case is made out to interfere with the appointment of the ifth respondent based upon the sketchy averments in the petition and without pointing out any serious inirmity in the appointment and approval.

¶17he sixth respondent was appointed to the Multi-Tasking Staf (Lab Attendant) post pursuant to an advertisement dated 15.07.2019. his post was reserved for PWDs. he selection committee recommended the sixth respondent for appointment to this post, and the sixth respondent was appointed accordingly by the managing committee. he Director of Education approved the appointment.

¶18he petitioners now allege that as per the roster points the school should have maintained, this post should have been an un-reserved post. Again, though reference is made to some circulars of the Directorate of Social Welfare, there is no elaboration on whether or how these circulars apply to the recruitment in the said school. In any case, the only allegation is that this MTS (Lab Attendant) post should have been an un-reserved post, but the same was reserved for PWDs.

¶19Signiicantly, none of the candidates belonging to the un-reserved category ever challenged the advertisement or the reservation. Upon assuming control of the managing committee, the petitioners cannot raise such challenges when there is no dispute about the educational or other qualiications possessed by the sixth respondent. Based upon some complicated interpretation of the circulars and without specifying how such circulars are applicable, the petitioners cannot belatedly challenge the appointment of a Lab Attendant made almost ive years ago against the post reserved for persons with disabilities.

¶20he seventh respondent was appointed Teacher Grade-I in Marathi against the post reserved for the OBC category. he petitioners contended that this post should have been reserved for the ST category. he petitioners rely upon certain circulars and rosters without elaborating on how these circulars and rosters apply to recruitment in the said school. Besides, this is not a case where any of the ST members have challenged the seventh respondent's appointment as Teacher Grade-I in Marathi on the ground that this post should have been reserved in the ST category.

¶21he petitioners cannot belatedly raise such challenges when there is no dispute about the seventh respondent belonging to the OBC category for which the post was advertised and possessing the requisite qualiications. here are some vague and unsubstantiated allegations about the ninth respondent issuing a backdated appointment order to the seventh respondent. Pertinently, even the Director of Education has approved the seventh respondent's appointment based on the recommendations of the duly constituted selection committee, of which one of the nominees of the Director was a member.

¶22he eighth respondent was appointed as a trained undergraduate teacher in Marathi and Hindi against the OBC category. Again, the petitioners contend that this post should have been unreserved based upon some complicated interpretation about rosters and without specifying or elaborating on how such roasters apply. Based on this ground, the eighth respondent's appointment as a Trained Undergraduate Teacher is sought to be challenged belatedly.

¶23his is not a case where some unreserved category candidate challenged the advertisement or reservation of this post for the OBC category. here is no allegation about the eighth respondent not being in the OBC category or not fulilling the requisite qualiications as prescribed. herefore, based on a belated challenge on a ground which has not even been substantiated, no case has been made to interfere with the appointment of the eighth respondent at this point in time.

¶24From the entire tenor of the petition, it is apparent that no substantive or substantial grounds have been raised to challenge the appointments of respondents no.3 to 8 made in 2019-2020. he petitioners have not even made any case to establish that they are the proper relators in the context of the grounds urged. Most of the grounds relate to the roster points. Wherever appointments are made to unreserved posts, the petitioners contend that the posts belong to the reserved category. Conversely, wherever appointments are made to reserved posts, the petitioners contend that these posts should have been in the unreserved category. No reserved or unreserved candidates have ever challenged the reservation or de reservation process. he pleadings are sketchy.

¶25he entire focus of this petition is on ousting the appointees during the tenure of the ninth respondent who was the former Chairman of the managing committee of the said school. his appears to be a conlict between the previous and present regimes. he petitioners wish to settle scores by questioning the appointments of respondents no.3 to 8 at a belated stage when such appointments were in pursuance to a regularly constituted selection committee in which a nominee of the Directorate of Education was one of the members. he Director of Education has duly approved such appointments. he petitioners have failed to demonstrate a breach of any statutory rules. he petitioners have not made out a case suggesting that the appointees do not possess any of the qualiications as prescribed. Upon cumulative consideration of all these factors, no case is made to entertain the present petition and interfere with the appointments of respondents 3 to 8 at this belated stage.

¶26For all the above reasons, we dismiss this petition. Since no notices were issued to respondents no.3 to 9, we refrain from awarding any costs in this matter.

VALMIKI MENEZES, J. M. S. SONAK, J. SUCHITRA NANDAN SINGBAL Date: 2024.04.10 16:42:11 +05'30'