Holding

The rescinding order and the High Court’s para‑2 observation were set aside, the 16‑Feb‑1994 absorption order was revived, and the appellant was permitted to seek consequential benefits.

Summary

The appellant, a headmaster appointed to a government high school, was transferred to a middle school after the school's takeover and later absorbed back as headmaster of the high school with retrospective effect and consequential benefits by a government order dated 16‑Feb‑1994. The appellant filed a writ petition seeking those benefits, and the High Court directed him to make a representation to the department, while also observing that his consent to the middle‑school posting was obtained under duress—a remark the Supreme Court found unwarranted. In response to the High Court’s observation, the State issued an order on 21‑Jan‑1999 rescinding the 1994 absorption order without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court held that this rescission violated the principles of natural justice and fair play, and that the High Court’s para‑2 observation was improper. Consequently, the Court set aside both the High Court observation and the State’s rescinding order, revived the 16‑Feb‑1994 order, and granted the appellant liberty to make a representation for the consequential benefits within a stipulated time. The appeal was allowed and no costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the State's rescission of the 16‑Feb‑1994 absorption order without hearing the appellant violates the principles of natural justice.
Whether the High Court's observation that the appellant's consent to the middle‑school posting was obtained under duress was justified and its impact on the case.
Whether the appellant is entitled to the consequential benefits flowing from the 16‑Feb‑1994 order.
Whether the appellate court should set aside the High Court's para‑2 observation and the subsequent State order.

Subjects

service lawnatural justiceconsequential benefitsgovernment orderrepresentationadministrative lawfair playheadmaster

Judgment

A SHRI GAJANAN L. PERNEKAR
v.
STATE OF GOA AND ANR.

AUGUST 16,1999

B [DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND
N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.]

Service Law:

C Educational Institution-Headmaster of High School-Schoo/ taken
over by Government-Appellant-Headmaster appointed as Headmaster of
other school which was a middle school-His representation allowed by
Government order dated 16.i 1994 and he was absorbed as Headmaster of
Government High School w.e.j 1.4.1974 with consequential benefits-Writ
D petition filed by appellant as consequential benefits not granted-High Court
disposed of writ petition with liberty to appellant to make representation to
department-High Court, however, observed that appointment of appellant
as Headmaster of Middle School was with his consent-Appeal against the
observations-Meanwhile on the strength of order ofHigh Court, Government
by order dated 21122.1.99 not only rejected representation of appellant for
/E consequential benefits but also rescinded order of absorption dated
16.2.1994-Held, observations made by High Court were uncalled for and,
there.fore, set aside-Order of Government dated 21122.1.1999 having been
passed in breach of principles of natural justice and in violation offair play
in action, is also set aside-Liberty to appellant to make representation to
Government which would decide the same expeditiously-Administrative
F Law-Principles of natural justice-Opportunity of hearing.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4504of1999.

From the Jµdgrµent and Order dated 14.7.98 of the Bombay High Court
in W.P. No. 261 of 1996.
G
Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin Anam, Ms. Shobha and S.K. Mehta, for the
Appellant.

Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
H 488
'·
G.L. PERNEKAR v. STATE 489

- Delay condoned.

Leave granted.
A

The appellant was appointed as the Headmaster of Shri Ramdas High
School, Amona, Goa on 25th May, 1970 in the pay scale of Rs. 325-575. He
was confinned in the post of Headmaster after completion of the period of B
probation on 1.6.1972. Shri Ramdas High School, which was a private school,
was taken over by the Government, alongwith the staff working in the said
school w.e.f. l.4.1974. At the time when the school was taken over, the
appellant was drawing his pay in the revised pay scale of Rs. 400. After the
take over of the school vide an order dated 10th June, 1974, the Government
appointed the appellant as Headmaster of Government Middle School at C
Saligao in the pay scale of Rs. 300-25-450-EB-25-600. Appellant protested
against his appointment as Headmaster of the Middle School, since earlier he
had been working as a Headmaster of the High School. The appellant, after
having joined the post of the Headmaster of the Middle School, made various
representations. He cited cases of some others to point out the injustice that D
had been done to him. On 13th January, 1993, the appellant was promoted to
the post of Deputy Education Officer in the Directorate of Education on ad-
hoc basis.
The representations made by the appellant from time to time were
considered by the Government and on 16.2.1994, an order came to be made
whereby the appellant was absorbed as a Headmaster of Government High E
School with retrospective effect from the date of take over of the School, i.e.
with effect from 1.4.1974 with all consequential benefits flowing therefrom.
The earlier order dated 10.6.1974 was rescinded. Since the consequential
benefits, as granted by the Government in its order dated 16.2.1994, were not
given to the appellant, he filed Writ Petition No. 261/1996 in the High Court F
of Bombay at Goa. The precise issue raised in the writ petition was with
regard to the failure to give consequential benefits to him as flowing from the
order of the Government, dated 16.2.1994. On 14th July, 1998, the writ petition
was heard and disposed of. So far as the consequentia! benefits are concerned,
the appellant was given the liberty to make a representation to the department
and the department was directed to decide that representation within a period G
of three months from the date of receipt of the representation.

In para -2 of the order of the High Court, dated 14th July, 1998, the
learned Bench observed:-

"2. During the course of hearing it was revealed that the absorption H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A of the petitioner against the post of Headmaster in a middle School
was with his consent. Mr. Lotlikar ·tried to urge that consent was
obtained under duress and coercion. It is painful to note .that such
averment was not incorporated in the petition. We treat this as material
suppression. We do not propose to entertain the petition."

B The appellant, being aggrieved of this direction, has filed this appeal
by special leave. During the pendency of the proceedings in this Court .the
Government, influenced by the observations made in para-2 of the order of
the High Court, dated 14th July 1998 (supra), made an order on 21st/22nd
January, 1999. The Government not only rejected the request of the appellant
C for grant of consequential benefits flowing form the earlier order dated 16~Z: 1994
but even rescinded the order of absorption of the appellant as Headmaster
of the Government High School with.out putting the appellant to any notiCe
o and without hearing him in that behalf.
•
It is not disputed before us that the issue before the High Court in Writ
D Petition No. 261 /96 was a limited one, confined to the grant of consequential
benefits. The observations made in para-2 (supra) were, in our opinion,
strictly speaking, not called for. Those observations have led to the passing
of the order dated 21st/22nd January, 1999. In the counter filed on behalf of
the respondents to the special leave petition, it has been stated in para-2 of
E the preliminary objections that "the respondents have, in obedience to the
High Court's directions have passed order dated 22.1.l 999 recalling the
Government's earlier order dated 16.2.1994 taking a decision on the
representations made by the petitioner".

The manner in which the order dated 21st/22nd January, 1999 came to
F be made was, to say the least, not proper. The appellant was denuded of the
benefits of the order dated 16.2.1994 unheard. There has been a breach of the
principle of natural justice and a violation of fair play in action. The earlier
order made in favour of the appellant as early as on 16.2.1994 was rescinded
without· giving any opportunity to the appellant to show cause against it.
Absorption of the appellant as Headmaster of Government High School by
G the order dated .16.2.1994 had not been put in issue through any proceedings
by any party at any point of time. That benefit could not have been taken
away from the appellant without affording him any opportunity of hearing,
even where the absorption as Head Master of High School had been put in
"Issue. The principles of na~ural justice have been respected in their breach.
H The order dated 21st/22nd January, 1999 was made by the respondents
G.L. PERNEKAR v. STATE 491

influenced by the observations contained in para-2 of the order of the High A
Court (supra), which observations, we have already found, were not at all
called for. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 21st/
22nd January, 1999 cannot be sustained and we accordingly set it aside.

- Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the observations of the
High Court contained in para-2 of its judgment dated 14th July, 1998 (supra)
as well as the follow-up order made by the State on 21st/22nd January, 1999.
B

As a resultthe order dated 16.2.1994 would stand revived. We grant liberty
to the appellant to make a representation to the State Government for grant
of consequential benefits flowing fro~ the order of 16.2.1994, as was directed
by the High Court itself. In case a representation is filed by the appellant
before the concerned department within six weeks from the date of this order, C
the same shall be decided by the department within a period of twelve weeks
from the date of the receipt of the copy of the representation. The
representation shall be decided by the department uninfluenced by the order
made on 21st/22nd January, 1999 as well as the observations made in para-
2 of the High Court order (supra), which, we have set aside.
D
The appeal, thus, succeeds and is allowed in the above terms. No costs.

RP. Appeal allowed.