Disposed

Damodar Higher Secondary School, Rep. by Its Man., Arvind Kulkarni and Anr., v. State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC1 Sept 2021WP/101/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of an interim writ petition regarding the winding up of a vocational stream in a school and the consequent relief of a teacher, granting liberty to challenge a subsequent adverse order by the Director of Education.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to challenge the order dated 18.11.2019 if the Director of Education makes an adverse order in the appeal by Respondent No.3.

Damodar Higher Secondary School, Rep. by Its Man., Arvind Kulkarni and Anr., Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors. — Bombay HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

5-WP 101-20.DOC

¶2

Amrut

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.101 OF 2020

¶5

DAMODAR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, REP. BY ITS MAN., ARVIND KULKARNI AND ANR.

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

STATE OF GOA, THR. THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS. …Respondents

¶9

Mr. Shivan Desai, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. P. Faldessai, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶10

Mr. Guru Shirodkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶11

CORAM: M. S. SONAK & SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ DATED: 1^st September 2021

¶12

P.C.

¶13

1. Heard Mr. Shivan Desai, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Guru Shirodkar, learned counsel for Respondent No.3.

¶14

2. The learned counsel for the parties point out that after this petition was instituted, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have issued an order discontinuing Vocational stream in the

Page 1 of 3

1^st September 2021

5-WP 101-20.DOC

Petitioners' school. As a result, the Respondent No.3 has been relieved from services with effect from 08.05.2021.

¶19

3. Mr. Shirodkar and Mr. Desai point out that the Respondent No.3 has challenged the action of relieving her from her services before the Director of Education.

¶20

4. Mr. Desai submits that in any case any adverse order is made by the Director in the appeal/proceedings instituted by Respondent No.3 then, the Petitioners might want to challenge the same. Mr. Desai submits that at that stage, the order dated 18.11.2019 impugned in this petition might also come in the way of the Petitioners. He, therefore, submits that liberty ought to be granted to the Petitioners to challenge the order dated 18.11.2019, in case, any adverse order is made by the Director in the appeal/proceedings instituted by Respondent No.3.

¶21

5. According to us, the request made by Mr. Desai is quite reasonable in the circumstances. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioners to challenge the order dated 18.11.2019 which was impugned in this petition, should, the Director, make any order adverse to the interest of the Petitioners in the appeal/proceedings instituted by Respondent No.3.

¶22

Page 2 of 3 1^st September 2021

¶23

5-WP 101-20.DOC

¶24

6. With liberty as aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.

¶25

7. All contentions of all parties are expressly kept open since we have not adverted to the merits of the matter.

¶26

SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J

¶27

M. S. SONAK, J.

¶28

Digitally signed by TARI AMRUT TARI AMRUT NAGESH NAGESH Date: 2021.09.03 10:13:00 +05'30'

¶29

Page 3 of 3

¶30

1^st September 2021

Damodar Higher Secondary School, Rep. by Its Man., Arvind Kulkarni and Anr., v. State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Damodar Higher Secondary School, Rep. by Its Man., Arvind Kulkarni and Anr., v. State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.N. Writer and Co. Pvt. Ltd., through Its Sr. Manager-Legal Neville Mukadam. Vs Shripad Vassudev Lad (Since Deceased) Represented by Legal Heirs and 2 Ors.

Andrew D'Cunha Vs the Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Other Backward Class Certificate Govt. of Goa and 5 Ors.

Ferdinando Fernandes., Vs Pramod Faldessai and 10 Ors.

Rohidas B. Sakhalkar Vs Village Panchayat of Cortalim, Represented by Its Secretary and 3 Ors.

Akshata R. Korgaonkar Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Vikramsingh Routella., Vs South Goa Planning and Development Authority (Sgpda) Thr. Its Member Secretary and 2 Ors.