Holding

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and remanded the case for fresh determination of all issues, including the school’s minority status.

Summary

Mrs. Aleyamma Mathai Almeida, an Assistant Teacher appointed in 1965, sought promotion to Headmistress of St. Anthony's High School, Goa, when vacancies arose in 1981 and later. Each time the school appointed a junior candidate, and the Director of Education disapproved those selections, ordering the school to reconsider and threatening takeover under Section 20 of the Goa School Education Act, 1984. The school claimed minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution and challenged the Director’s appointment of a Deputy Director as a member of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition but allowed the school’s petition, without deciding the minority‑status issue. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by not addressing all questions, especially the school’s minority status, and set aside its order, remanding the matter for fresh disposal, noting that the appellant had retired in 1998, rendering the promotion claim moot.

Issues considered

The High Court’s failure to decide the minority status of the school under Article 30.
Validity of the Director of Education’s order appointing a Deputy Director as a DPC member in a minority institution.
Whether the takeover of the school’s management under Section 20 of the Goa School Education Act, 1984 was lawful.
Whether the appellant’s promotion claim remains maintainable after her retirement.

Legislation cited

Goa School Education Act, 1984s. 20
Goa School Education Rules, 1986s. Rule 74(3)(a)

Subjects

promotionminority institutionArticle 30Goa School Education ActDepartmental Promotion Committeetakeoversenioritywrit petition

Judgment

---j
ALEYAMMA MATHAI ALMEIDA A
v.
STATE OF GOA AND ORS.

APRIL 13, 2007

[C.K. THAKKERAND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] B

.... -..: Service law:

Promotion-Vacancy arose in the School-Assistant teacher much junior
to appellant appointed to the post of headmistress-Director of Education
c
(DOE) disapproved the selection and recommended name of appellant-
School appointed another person junior to appellant-DOE appointed Deputy
Director to be member of DPC to ensure that School adheres to the Rules
and Regulations-Schoo/ challenged this on the ground that it was a minority
institution and hence no such order could be passed-Both appellant and D
School filed writ petitions-High court did not consider the minority status
of school and held that in facts writ petition filed by appellant is liable to
l
A be dismissed-On appeal held, High Court ought to have decided all the
questions raised in the case including the question of minority status of
school under Art.30 of the Constitution-Matter remitted to High Court-
Goa School Education Rules, 1.986-s.20_
E

The dispute relates to the promotion of appellant, Assistant Teacher to
the post of Headmistress in Respondent No.3-School.

When the vacancy arose in the said School, Assistant Teacher much
F
junior to the appellant was appointed to the post of Headmistress. Appellant
filed writ petition during pendency of which, Headmistress retired and the
writ petition became infructuous. Post again fell vacant and name of respondent
No.4 was recommended who was also much junior to the appellant.

The Director of Education (DOE) disapproved selection of Respondent G
No.4 and informed School to reconsider the case of appellant. The DOE was
of the opinion that the school had been victimizing the appellant and causing
A, unhealthy situation in the School and thus issued showcause notice asking
as to why management of the School be not taken over under s.20 of Goa
School Education Act, 1984.
149
H
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R.

A An order was thereafter passed by the Government taking over the
management of School, which was set aside in a writ petition filed by School. y-

The DOE again asked School to fill up the vacant post. The DOE appointed
Deputy Director of Education, South Zone as his representative in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 74(3)(a) of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986
to be one of the Members of DPC with a view to ensure that all Rules and
B Regulations are strictly adhered to. The said action was challenged by the
respondent-School by filing Writ Petition on the ground that it was a minority

c
institution and hence, no such order could have been made. The writ petition,
however, was allowed to be 'withdrawn keeping open the contention that it was
the minority institution' and therefore protected under Article 30 of the
Constitution. By the interim order, the High Court directed that DPC meeting
)..-
-
be convened as per the order of Directorate of Education. According to the
appellant, DPC once again recommended the name of respondent No.4 which
was disapproved by the DOE.

Appellant again made representation to consider her for promotion.
D Thereafter she filed writ petition. School also challenged the order of DOE.
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 tiled by the appellant was liable to be dismissed whereas !'
the writ petition of the School Management was required to be alloweil. Hence
E the present appeal

Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court

HELD: Considering the checkered history of the litigation and long
period it has taken, it would be appropriate ifthe impugned order is set aside
F 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.
(Para 11 J (154-D, EJ
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1951 of 2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.09.2003 of the High Court of ~
Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition Nos. 202 and 206 of 1998.

H P. Venugopal, Venukumar and Harshad V Hameed (for MIS. K.J. John
& Co.) for the Appellant.
ALEYAMMAMATIWALMEIDAv. STATE OF GOA [C.K. THAKKER,J.) 151
Siddharth Bhatnagar and Rekha Palli for the Respondents. A
,__,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C.K. THAKKER, J. I. Leave granted.

2. The appeal arises out of a common judgment dated September I 0, B
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 c
Master arose in the said School in 1981. One Mrs. Irane Ferreira, an Assistant
•-:.. Teacher, much junior to the appellant Nas appointed as the Head Mistress
bypassing the appellant's claim to the said post. Aggrieved by the action, the
appellant approached the High Court of Bombay, Goa Bench at Panaji by
filing Writ Petition No. 56 of 1985 on June 24, 1985 which was admitted. But
by the time the petition came up for hearing, Mrs. Ferreira retired from service, D
the petition became infructuous and rejected accordingly. But again, in view
I of vacancy for the post of Head Master, the Departmental Promotion Committee
.J. ('DPC' for short) met to select a candidate for the post of Head Master and
one Mr. Conception Almeida-respondent No.4 herein was selected and
recommended for the said post vide recommendation dated May I, 1985. The E
said respondent No.4 was junior to the appellant. Thus, once again the claim
of the appellant was bypassed, presumably on the ground that there were
adverse entries in the Confidential Reports of the appellant.

4. The Director of Education, Government of Goa-respondent No.2 herein,
however, disapproved selection of respondent No.4 to the post of Head F
Master by the School. By a communication dated October 18/21, 1985, the
Director of Education informed the Manager of respondent No.3-School to
reconsider the case of the appellant for promotion to the post of Head Master
(Head Mistress) ignoring adverse remarks made in her Confidential Reports.
By a letter dated November 11, 1985, the respondent No.3-School informed
G
the Director of Education that besides adverse Confidential Reports, there
were other tangible reasons for not considering the appellant for appointment
~ to the post of Head Master. In the light of the communication 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
H
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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 the maintenance grant
of the school for the academic year 1987-88 or till the directives issued to the
respondent No.3-School by the Directorate would be complied with. The
School was further cautioned that non-compliance of the directives by the
C Directorate might result in severe penalty on respondent No.3-School including
suspension/stoppage of entire maintenance grant or withdrawal of permission
granted to run the Institution.

5. An appeal preferred by respondent No.3-School before the
Administrative Tribunal, Goa, Daman and Diu against the order passed by the
D Directorate was allowed on the ground that the School had not been given
proper show cause notice by the Directorate of Education before passing the
order and was, therefore, liable to be set aside. The third respondent then
replied to the show cause notice and also sought approval of the Director of
Education for appointment of respondent No.4 as Head Master on the ground
E that the action ofrespondent No.3 management rejecting the appellant's claim
who was the senior-most teacher in the school was proper. The Director,
however, did not agree and issued a show cause notice to the School stating
therein as to why the management of the School should not be taken over
under Section 20 of the Goa School Education Act, 1984 for victimizing the
appellant for more than a decade causing unhealthy situation in the School
F and creating un-conducive atmosphere for academic activities which would
be prejudicial to the public interest. 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 ofrespondent No.3-School for a period of three years. Respondent
G 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.
H
ALEYAMMA MATHAI ALMEIDA'" STATEOFGOA[C.K. THAKKER,J.] 153
7. In the light of the direction issued by this Court, the Director of A
-·- ... Education asked respondent No.3-School to. reconvene the meeting of DPC
for filling up the post of Head Master of the School which fell vacant in 1985.
The Director of Education appointed Deputy Director of Education, South
Zone as his representative in accordance with the provisions of Rule 74(3)(a)
of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986 to be one of the Members ofDPC
with a view to ensure that all Rules and Regulations are strictly adhered to. B
The said action was challenged by the third respondent-School by filing Writ
Petition No. 124 of 1997 in the High Court of Bombay, Goa Bench at Panaji
., on the ground that it was a minority institution and hence, no such order
could have been made. The writ petition, however, was allowed to be withdrawn
keeping open the contention that it was the 'minority institution' and therefore c
protected under Article 30 of the Constitution. By the interim order, the High
Court directed that DPC meeting be convened as per the order of Directorate
of Education. According to the appellant, DPC once again recommended the
name of respondent No.4 which was disapproved by the Director of Education.

8. On November 18, 1997, the appellant represented the Director of D
Education to order respondent No.3-School to promote her as Head Mistress
of the School with effect from May 1, 1985 when the post fell vacant and to
.l grant all consequential benefits. Since nothing was done in the matter and no
order was passed by the Director of Education, the appellant filed Writ
Petition No. 202 of 1997. The respondent No.3-School also filed Writ Petition
E
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 F
.-; 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 appellant has challenged
the said order by filing the present appeals.
G
9. We have heard learned counse I for the parties .
... 10. It was contended that the order passed by the High Court deserves
to be quashed and set aside. It was submitted that the appellant was senior-
most Assistant Teacher appointed as early as in 1965 and in spite of her
H
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A seniority, she was not appointed as the Head Mistress though substantive
vacancy had arisen in 1981. When Mrs. Ferreira was appointed as Head
Mistress who was junior to the appellant, the appellant challenged the action
by filing a writ petition. The High Court was satisfied that the grievance
voiced by the appellant was well-founded and accordingly admitted the petition
B by issuing Rule nisi. Meanwhile, however, Mrs. Ferreira retired and the petition
was disposed of by the High Court observing that it had become infructuous.
Obviously, therefore, the appellant ought to have been appointed after the
retirement of Mrs. Ferreira. Unfortunately, however, the DPC again did injustice
and not selected her. Respondent No.4, who was much junior to the appellant,
was selected and his name was recommended for appointment as Head Master.
C Though several times recommendations were rejected by the Directorate of
Education to do justice to the appellant, the orders had not been complied
with by respondent No.3-School. While disposing the writ petitions, the High
Court did not decide the status of respondent No.3-School and allowed the
petition filed by respondent No.4. The grievance was that the High Court
ought to have decided all the points including the status of respondent No.3-
D 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
E . 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.

F 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed and
is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the High Court is set aside and .-.
the matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with
law. The High Court may deal with all questions including the question as to
minority status alleged to have been claimed by the respondent No.3-School.
Since the matter is very old, the High Court is requested to take appropriate
G decision as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the
date oT receipt of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case there
shall be no order as to costs. ""'

D.G. Appeal is allowed.
H