Bombay High Court
Shri Shrikant Shiva Vengurlekar vs Director Of Education And Ex-Officio ... on 21 October, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(3)BOMCR60
Author: R.K. Batta
Bench: R.K. Batta, R.M.S. Khandeparkar
ORDER R.K. Batta, J.
1. The petitioner passed B.Sc. Degree in the year 1990 and B.Ed. Degree in May 1992. He was appointed as Assistant Teacher in respondent No. 3 School with effect from 6th June 1992 on probation for two years. On 12th May 1993 respondent No. 3 School was given necessary permission by the Education Department to start the School. It appears that the School was functioning prior to that without any permission from the Education Department. On 19th April 1994 a fresh Order of appointment was issued in favour of the petitioner with reference to his application dated 4th June 1993 and the said appointment was also made on probation for two years. The approval for the post of undergraduate teacher in the said School was granted on 8th July 1983 and the approval for the appointment of the petitioner against the said post was granted by the Director of Education vide letter dated 10th March 1994. The approval for the appointment of the petitioner was granted with effect from joining in the School after interview and this date is stated to be 14th September 1993. The petitioner discharged the functions of Acting Headmaster upto 15th April 1996. By letter dated 5th February 1996 approval was granted by the Director of Education for the post of trained graduate teacher in the said School. On 20th February 1996 D.P.C. met and conducted interviews after advertising the post on 15th, 16th and 17th February 1996. The candidates which were considered for this appointment were called from the source of direct recruitment. In pursuance of the recommendation of the D.P.C. the appointment of respondent No. 4 was made. It is this appointment which is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.
2. The grounds on which the challenge has been made may now be stated. The petitioner stales that he had joined service with effect from 6th June 1992 and had also completed 3 years experience as on the date of the advertisement and according to Rule 86(1) of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986 (hereinafter called 'the said Rules'), every vacancy in an aided school shall be filled up by promotion, failing which, by direct recruitment in accordance with such Rules as may be framed by the Director of Education in this behalf and notified/circulated separately. According to the petitioner Rule 78(6) of the Rules lays down minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of trained graduate teacher. The essential "qualifications for direct recruits thereunder is a degree from recognised University and a degree in Education/Teaching from a recognised University. However, in case of promotees, in addition to the qualification prescribed for the direct recruits, experience of 3 years in the undergraduate grade is required failing which an undergraduate teacher possessing a degree from a recognised University and a diploma in education and having 5 years experience out of which at least 3 years experience after obtaining diploma in education is also required to be considered. Thus, the petitioner claims that he fulfilled the qualifications for promotee candidate and the management could not resort to recruitment by calling applications from the direct recruits.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted before us that the experience of the petitioner is to be taken from the date of his initial appointment on 6th June 1992 and the case of the respondents is that the experience can be counted only from 14th September 1993, It is pertinent to note that the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 6th June 1992 was in a school for which no permission had been obtained from the Director of Education and it was only on 12th May 1993 that the permission was granted by the Education Department to the said school. The petitioner had himself applied afresh on 4th June 1993 and the post in question had been approved on 8th July 1993. It was thereafter that the interview for the said post was held and the petitioner was given fresh appointment order with effect from 14th September 1993. In these circumstances, the services rendered by the petitioners from 6th June 1992 til! 13th September 1993 cannot be recognised as experience for the purpose of promotion since the said services were rendered by him in a school for which no permission had been granted by the Director of Education. Eventhough learned advocate for the petitioner drew our attention to the record where it is shown that the experience of one year of the petitioner was taken into account at the time of his appointment, yet, in view of our findings as above, the said period cannot be counted for the purpose of promotion. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the first contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner was fulfilling the requirements which are necessary for a promotes candidate.
4. In the absence of any qualified promotee from the Department, the post had to be advertised for direct recruitment. The post was advertised on 15th, 16th and 17th February 1996 and D.P.C. meeting for the purpose of selection was held on 20th February 1996. The case of the petitioner is that in accordance with proviso to Rule 86(1) of the said Rules, the claim of the petitioner was required to be considered at the time of direct recruitment and that his claim was not at all considered as required thereunder. Learned advocate for the petitioner had submitted in this connection that it is not necessary under the said proviso that the petitioner should have staked his claim for consideration alongwith the direct recruits, but it was for the Department to consider all candidates who were eligible for consideration thereunder even without their staking claim. We cannot accept this contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner since, if the same is accepted, the words 'the claim' in the proviso to Rule 86(1) would be rendered superfluous. In our opinion, claim has to be put forward by a candidate who fulfils the requirements and once claim is put forward, the management has to consider the claim of such employee alongwith the candidates who apply for direct recruitment.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted before us that in fact claim had been put forward by the petitioner before the Management vide letter dated 13th February 1996. The receipt of this letter is disputed by the Management and it is the case of the Management that this letter has been subsequently fabricated by the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was a member of the Departmental Selection Committee which was constituted for the purpose of recruitment from direct source and which had interviewed the candidates. Not only the petitioner participated in the said Departmental Selection Committee proceedings but it appears that he had not raised any objection though subsequently he has alleged that he was coerced and threatened to sign the minutes of the meeting which we are not inclined to believe. Moreover, letter dated 29th March 1996 of the petitioner to the Director of Education is a clear indication that the petitioner had not put up any claim for the post at any time prior to 25th March 1996 and in the absence of proof of delivery of letter dated 13th February 1996, we cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that he had staked his claim on 13th February 1996. Thus, it appears that the claim was put forward by the petitioner for the first time only on 25th March 1996 as reflected in letter dated 29th March 1996 but by that time the candidate had already been selected and the belated claim of the petitioner could not be looked into.
6. Learned advocates for the respondents have submitted that an employee is required to put up his claim before the Management and it is not necessary that the candidate should otherwise normally apply.
7. In view of the above we do not find any merit in any of the grounds on the basis of which the petitioner has staked his claim in respect of the post of trained graduate teacher. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged and in the facts and circumstances, we would leave the parties to bear their own costs.
8. Petition dismissed.