IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a Departmental Promotion Committee must be properly constituted and adhere to principles of natural justice, including the communication of adverse remarks, to ensure fair treatment in promotion processes.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

M.S.SONAK, J. - Heard Mr S.D. Lotlikar learned Senior Advocate who appears along with Mr Terence Sequeira for the Petitioner, Mr Shubham Priolkar, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 4, and Mr J.P. Mulgaonkar learned Senior Advocate who appears along with Ms Asmita Tirodkar for Respondents No. 2 and 6. Respondents No. 3 and 5 though served but were not present nor represented.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Even otherwise, by order dtd. 2/5/2023, notices were issued to the Respondents clarifying that the Petition would be disposed of finally at the admission stage.

4. The Petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the Respondents to appoint him as the Headmaster of Respondent No.2-School effective from 01/05/2014, i.e. the day on which the vacancy to this post arose upon the retirement of Ms Vaijayanti Pokle. The Petitioner also seeks a mandamus to appoint him as Incharge Headmaster pending appointment regularly. Finally, the Petitioner has sought compensation of 10.00 lakhs and costs of 2.00 lakhs ? ? towards mental harassment, embarrassment, etc.

5. The Petitioner was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher at the Respondent No.2-School (said School) effective 20/2/1990. In contrast, Respondent No.5 (Subhash) was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher in the said School effective from 5/7/2002, i.e. almost 12 years after the appointment of the Petitioner. In the seniority lists circulated by the School Management from time to time, the Petitioner was always shown and continues to be shown as senior to Subhash (R.5).

6. The Petitioner has pleaded that a month before Ms Vaijayanti Pokle attained the age of superannuation, she was appointed as the Headmistress of the said School in May-June 2013. However, Ms Pokle's services were extended up to 30/4/2014, effective from which date Ms Pokle retired. Thus, from 1/5/2014, there arose a clear vacancy in the post of Headmaster of the said School.

7. On 12/6/2014, the School Management sought a NOC from the Directorate of Education to appoint Subhash (R.5) as Incharge Headmaster. The Directorate of Education, vide communication dtd. 3/7/2014, declined the NOC. The Directorate, however, directed the School Management to complete the formalities for filling up the post of Headmaster regularly.

8. Despite the above, the School Management appointed Subhash (R.5) as the School's Acting Headmaster. This position continues because from 2015 to 2019, the then Manager of the said School, Advocate Satish Saudagar, filed a complaint against the Petitioner at the Calangute Police Station, stating that the Petitioner misbehaved with girl students. Relying upon this complaint, the School Management neither bothered to hold a regular Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to make a regular appointment to the post of Headmaster nor were any disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner. The Petitioner made several representations between 2014 and 2022 but to no avail.

9. On 27/12/2019, Police Inspector Calangute Police Station filed a 'B' final summary before the Children's Court, stating explicitly that the investigations revealed that the complaint against the Petitioner was "false and baseless ". The report records that the investigations revealed disputes and differences between the Managing Committee Members and two sets of committees when the Petitioner was due for promotion to the vacant post of Headmaster. The report also records that the statement of the victim girl was recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. before the J.M.F.C. Mapusa in which she categorically stated that the Petitioner teaches Maths and Science to the students and that he was good and did not trouble her. Similarly, two other students also gave similar statements. One of the students stated before the J.M.F.C. that another teacher had told her to give an incorrect statement against the Petitioner o