The High Court at Goa held that a writ petition challenging vacant teacher appointments for the 2011-2012 academic year had become infructuous as the relevant period had expired and the petition remained pending for seven years.
The writ petition was disposed of, the rule was discharged, and no costs were awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 wp376-11dt.24-10-18
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.376 OF 2011
1. Smrutee S. Kamulkar,
near Ravalnath Temple,
Maus Waddo, Pernem, Goa.
2. Sushma C. Naik,
r/o. H.No.188, Ramniwas,
Deul wada, Marcela, Goa.
3. Yeshwant A. Malwadkar,
Ameya waddo, Khandola,
Marcela, Ponda, Goa.
4. Elvina Ferrao,
Shellim Loliem,
Canacona, Goa.
5. Smita D. Juvekar,
Flat No.S-2, Prajakta Apartments,
Opp. Sewage Treatment Plant,
Shirvodem, Margao, Goa.
6. Shailendra R. Palyekar,
C/o. Bhirondem,
Kharebandh, Pernem, Goa.
7. Refan Pereira,
H.No.677/1, Caroi Velim,
Salcete, Goa.
8. Poonam S. Deshmukh,
r/o. H.No.1468, Ganadheep,
2 wp376-11dt.24-10-18
Chandra waddo,
Fatorda, Margao, Goa. …... Petitioners.
Versus
1. State of Goa,
through the Chief Secretary,
Alto Porvorim, Bardez, Goa.
2. Secretary of Education,
Alto Porvorim, Bardez, Goa.
3. Directorate of Education,
through its Director, Mrs. Selsa Pinto,
….....
18th June Road, Panaji, Goa. Respondents.
Mr. Rohit Bras da Sa, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Pradosh Dangui, Government Advocate for the Respondents.
Coram : N.M. Jamdar &
Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.
Date : 24 October 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per N.M. Jamdar, J.)
By this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the
advertisement for filling up the vacancies to the post of Vocational
Teachers for the Academic Year 2011-2012 in Commercial Garment
and Making, Office Secretaryship and Stenography and Electronic
Technology and consequently appointments made pursuant to the
3 wp376-11dt.24-10-18
said advertisement.
2.The advertisement was issued on 15 May 2010. The
Petitioners applied pursuant to the advertisement and they were
called for interviews. Thereafter Writ Petition No. 320/2011 came
to be filed wherein a statement was made on behalf of the State that
the selection process was being withdrawn. Thereafter the posts are
advertised and the Petitioners have filed this Petition.
3.Rule was issued on 28 June 2011. Interim relief was
refused. The Petition came on board on 1 September 2018 and it
was adjourned. On 12 October 2018, time was sought on behalf of
the Petitioners for taking instructions and the Petition was adjourned
to 17 October 2018. On 17 October 2018, following order was
passed:
“The learned Government Advocate points out that the
impugned advertisement was given effect to, the teachers
were appointed for a period of one academic year
pursuant to the advertisement, which academic year has
also come to an end. The Interim relief was refused in
this petition.
2. It is clear that petition has become infructuous and
could have been disposed of on that ground. However,
since the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not
present, by way of indulgence, stand over to 24 October
2018 to be listed under the caption “For Dismissal”.”
4 wp376-11dt.24-10-18
4.The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that
the Petition has not become infructuous inasmuch as the
appointed/selected candidates continue to be in service. He
submitted that their continuance is contrary to law and the
appointed candidates cannot continue on permanent posts in such a
fashion.
5.The advertisement which is under challenge itself
stipulates that the applications were invited for the posts purely on
temporary basis for the Academic Year 2011-2012. It is pursuant to
this advertisement, the candidates have been appointed. This
academic year is over. The Petition is pending since the year 2011.
According to the Petitioners, the said persons continue to be in
service. It is not made clear as to whether there was any subsequent
advertisement and another selection process. There is neither any
amendment to the Petition, nor the said persons have been joined as
party Respondents.
6.Since we find that the present Petition is limited to the
Academic Year 2011-2012 and that it has continued to remain
pending for last seven years in this fashion, it has clearly become
infructuous. If there are some other grounds and that the appointed
5 wp376-11dt.24-10-18
candidates have continued in service unauthorizedly, it is always open
to the Petitioners to take up that cause separately, which will
obviously be considered on its own merits .
7.The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is
discharged. No costs.
Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. N.M. Jamdar, J.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging appointments for Academic Year 2011-2012 remains maintainable after the academic year has ended.
Whether the petition has become infructuous due to the lapse of time and completion of the specific tenure.
Santosh
State of Goa
N.M. Jamdar
Prithviraj K. Chavan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court