ALEYAMMA MATHAI ALMEIDA versus STATE OF GOA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 149 · Decided: 13-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ALEYAMMA MA THAI ALMEIDA 
A 
---j 
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 c 
to appellant appointed to the post of headmistress-Director of Education 
(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 
l 
of school and held that in facts writ petition filed by appellant is liable to 
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- E 
Goa School Education Rules, 1.986-s.20_ 
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. 
H 
149 
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 
B to be one of the Members of DPC with a view to ensure that all Rules and 
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 
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 
c 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. 
D 
Appellant again made representation to consider her for promotion. 
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. 
G 
(Para 11 J (154-D, EJ 
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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.