Dismissed

Mr. Savio Britto., v. the State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary and 11 Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2012WP/25/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No. 25 of 2012, the petitioner challenged appointments of individuals on a lecture basis. The Court declined to interfere, noting the appointments were for a specific academic year. It held that exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 was not appropriate at this stage and disposed of the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr. Savio Britto., Vs the State of Goa through Its… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 25 OF 2012

¶3

MR. SAVIO BRITTO., ... Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND 11 ORS., ... Respondents

¶4

Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sameer Bandodkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶5

Coram:A. P. LAVANDE &

¶6

U. V. BAKRE, JJ. Date:23rd January, 2012

¶7

P.C. :-

¶8

Heard Mr. Costa Frias for the petitioner and Mr. Bandodkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶9

Having regard to the nature of the order that we propose to pass, we deem it not necessary to give notices to respondents No.4 to 12.

¶10

By this petition, the petitioner challenges appointments of respondents No.4 to 12 on lecture basis, by respondent No.3.

¶11

According to Mr. Costa Frias, respondents No.1 to 3 are not entitled to appoint respondents No. 4 to 12 on lecture basis ex post facto. Mr. Costa Frias further submitted that a perusal of order dated 4th October, 2011, issued by respondent No. 3, does not disclose that the appointment is for the Academic Year 2011-12.

¶12

Mr. Bandodkar, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing

¶13

for respondents No.1 to 3 states that perusal of the communication dated 17th August, 2011 by respondent No.3 to the Directorate of Education discloses that the permission has been granted by the State Government on 24th June, 2011 to appoint respondents No.4 to 12 on lecture basis only for the Academic Year 2011-12.

¶14

Since the appointments of respondents No.4 to 12, on lecture basis, are only for the Academic Year 2011-12 and the Academic Year is to expire in April-May, 2012, we are not inclined to interfere with the appointments of respondents No.4 to 12 on lecture basis.

¶15

We are not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India considering that the appointments of respondents No. 4 to 12 are only for the Academic Year 2011-12 and it would not be an appropriate exercise of jurisdiction to interfere with the appointments of respondents No.4 to 12 at this stage.

¶16

For the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to interfere with the appointments of respondents No.4 to 12 on lecture basis. The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of, with no order as to costs.

¶17

A. P. LAVANDE, J.

¶18

U. V. BAKRE, J.

¶19

ssm.

Mr. Savio Britto., v. the State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mr. Savio Britto., v. the State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Mariano Rosario Joao D'Silva Vs State of Goa through Public Prosecutor, Panaji Goa

Smt. Droupadi S. Kamat and Anr., Vs Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Disability Rights Association of Goa through Its President Shri. Avelino De Sa Vs State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Mr. Martinho Rocha., Vs State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Dr. Ketan Govekar and Anr., Vs the State of Goa, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa, Secretariat, Bardez and 2 Ors.

Maria a. Pires and 4 Ors., Vs the State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 6 Ors.