IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that under Rule 86 of the Goa School Education Rules, seniority must be prioritized in promotions, and any deviation requires substantial justification, which was not present in this case.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

M.S.SONAK, J. - Heard Mr Vivek Rodrigues who appears along with Mr Kevin Braganza for the Petitioner, Mr Neehal Vernekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appears for the first and second respondents, Mr D. Lawande who appears along with Mr P. Dangui and Ms Akshaya Joglekar for the third respondent and Mr Gajendra Usgaonkar for the fourth respondent.

2. The petitioner, the senior-most teacher in the feeder category, challenges his supersession and the consequent promotion of the fourth respondent to the post of headmaster of the Dnyanprakash Mandal Bicholim Higher Secondary School (said school) as vitiated by malafide and breach of the Goa School Education Act, 1984 (said Act) and the Goa School Education Rules, 1986 (said Rules).

3. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Even otherwise, considering the history of litigations in this matter, notice was issued on 13/3/2023 by indicating that an endeavour would be made to dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage.

4. Mr Vivek Rodrigues, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the managing committee in superseding the petitioner is actuated by malafides. He submits that this management has gone to great lengths to declare the fourth respondent as senior to the petitioner. After that attempt failed, an attempt was made to spoil the petitioner's Confidential Reports (CRs). Mr Rodrigues pointed out that from 1994 till 2021, there were no adverse remarks communicated to the petitioner. In fact, in 2020, the management felicitated the petitioner for completing twenty-five years of meritorious service. He pointed out that it was only after the school management started favouring the fourth respondent on the issue of seniority which was in fact settled in the year 2007, that the petitioner protested and the managing committee responded by attempting to spoil the petitioner's CRs. He submitted that the adverse CRs were finally communicated to the petitioner only after 31/7/2022, i.e. the date on which the vacancy for the position of principal arose. He submitted that such CRs, apart from being issued malafide, could not have been considered for filling up the vacancy that arose on 31/7/2022. Mr Rodrigues relied on Union of India & Ors. v/s. N. R. Banerjee & Ors. - (1997) 9 SCC 287, S. B. Bhattacharjee v/s. S. D. Majumdar & Ors. - (2007) 10 SCC 513 and Shubhangi Manerkar v/s. State of Goa and Ors. - (Writ Petitions No.410 and 808 of 2019 decided on 18/12/2019) in support of his contentions.

5. Mr Rodrigues submitted that the issue of seniority was settled by the Director's order dtd. 21/1/2021. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the said order by declining to condone the delay on 12/4/2023. Earlier the Tribunal vacated the stay on the Director's order dtd. 21/1/2021 by order dtd. 19/8/2022. Writ Petition No.443/2022 challenging this order was dismissed by this Court on 4/10/2022. The Tribunal and this Court made prima facie observations about the collusion between the managing committee and the fourth respondent. Even Special Leave Petition (C) No.18728 of 2022 against this Court's Order dtd. 4/10/2022 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 31/10/2022. Mr Rodrigues submits that despite all this, the fourth respondent still raises the issue of seniority, and if the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) are perused, it is apparent that even the DPC has defied the Director's order and Tribunal's order on the issue of seniority. Mr Rodrigues submits that in any case, the prima facie findings about collusion between the management and the fourth respondent stand, inter alia for want of challenge to the Tribunal's order dtd. 12/4/2023.

6. Mr Rodrigues submits that the petitioner's case is almost identical to the case of Shubhangi Manerkar (supra), who was also sought to be denied promotion despite her seniority p