Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 645
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
M.S. KARNIK, VALMIKI MENEZES, NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
Smt. Pranita U. Parab, Wife of Shri Uday Parab - Petitioner
Versus
State of Goa, Through its Chief Secretary and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.1580 Of 2024 (Filing No.)
Decided On : 12-03-2025
Mr S. S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Ms Saicha Dessai, Ms Neha Kholkar, Mr Simoes Kher, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr Devidas Pangam, Advocate General with Mr Deep Shirodkar Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr V. A. Lawande with Mr Parimal Redkar and Mr S. Gurav, Advocates
for respondent No.3.
Mr Sudesh Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Ms Maria Rosette Pereira,
Advocate for respondent No.4.
The Circular dated 29.05.1992 does not grant vocational teachers promotion rights under the Goa School Education Act, 1984, maintaining the distinction between vocational and general streams.
Headnote:
(A) Goa School Education Act, 1984 - Rules of 1986 - Circular dated 29.05.1992 - Promotion eligibility of vocational teachers - The court examined conflicting interpretations of the Circular regarding vocational teachers' eligibility for promotion to Headmaster/Principal positions. It reaffirmed that vocational teachers are not entitled to promotion under the Act and Rules, as they are governed by separate provisions. (Paras 2, 3, 6, 23, 28)
(B) Legal principles - The Circular cannot alter statutory provisions of the Act and Rules. The distinction between vocational and general streams is maintained, and vocational teachers do not possess the qualifications required for promotion to the Principal post. (Paras 20, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a vocational teacher, claimed entitlement to promotion based on the Circular, which was contested by the State, asserting that vocational teachers are not eligible for such promotions. (Paras 7, 8, 9)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Circular does not confer promotion rights to vocational teachers, maintaining the separation of the vocational and general streams. (Paras 23, 28)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the Circular dated 29.05.1992 grants vocational teachers the right to promotion to Principal positions under the Goa School Education Act, 1984. (Paras 6, 28)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the Circular cannot supersede the Act and Rules, and vocational teachers remain distinct from general stream teachers regarding promotion eligibility. (Paras 23, 28)
Result: The court upheld the view in Rajan Bandekar and rejected the contrary view in Subhash Laxman Nerurkar.
JUDGMENT :
Nivedita P. Mehta, J.
1) The distinction between the two positions adopted by this Court concerning the interpretation of the Circular dated 29.05.1992 constitutes the basis of this reference.
2) In the case of Rajan N. Bandekar vs. State of Goa, Writ Petition No. 2065 of 2021(F), this Court held that teachers from the Vocational Stream were not entitled to promotion to the post of Headmaster/ Principal in terms of the Goa School Education Act, 1984(hereinafter refered to as "the Act, 1984) and Rules of 1986. It also held that Circular dated 29.05.1992 would not entitle a vocational teacher to be brought under the provisions of the Act, 1984 and Rules, 1986.
3) A subsequent judgment of a Coordinate Bench in Subhash Laxman Nerurkar Vs State of Goa and others, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1402 in paragraph 6 which read thus:
"A perusal of the language of Circular would indicate, that though the appointment of vocational teachers earlier thereto, was under the scheme by the Central Government, however consequent to the Circular dated 29.05.1992 all the teachers so appointed under the Central Government Scheme stood absorbed in the Regular Cadre under the Act of 1984 and the Rules framed thereunder. This would clearly indicate that the employment of the petitioner stood governed by Rule 78 of the Rules 1986 framed under the Act of 1984. On this ground therefore, we are not in agreement with different for the reason that it does not consider the languged different for the reason that it does not consider the language of Circular of 29.05.1992 which has the effect of bringing the engagement of teachers under the Central Scheme, under the Act of 1984 but is based upon reliance on the statement that the seniority list was separately maintained. As stated earlier the effect of applying the Act of 1984 to the teachers engaged under the scheme was making Rule 78 applicable to them."
Thus, in Subhash Laxman Nerurkar (supra), a view contrary to the one taken in Rajan Bandekar (supra) was taken, holding that on a plain interpretation of the very same Circular dated 29.05.1992, the Vocational Teachers were entitled to the benefits of Rule 78 of the Goa School Education Act, 1984 and Rules of 1986 and therefore entitled to be promoted to the post of Headmaster/Principal in the General Stream. The Coordinate Bench further held that it disagreed with the view taken in Rajan Bandekar (supra).
4) Subsequently, the aforementioned judgments' taking contrary views came up for consideration before yet another Coordinate Bench in Pranita Parab Vs. State of Goa through its Chief Secretary and three others, which after considering the same vide order dated 10.01.2025 has held in paragraphs 6 and 7 as under:
"6. Thus, we, find, there are two divergent views expressed by two separate Division Benches of this Court as regards the interpretation of the Circular dated 29th May 1992. Though judgment in Subhash Laxman Nerurkar (supra) was rendered subsequent to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Rajan Bandekar (supra) and Subhash Laxman Nerurkar (supra) makes a mention of the judgment in the Case of Rajan Bandekar (supra) however, as per the requirement of law if the Division Bench rendering the judgment in the case of Subhash Laxman Nerurkar (supra) was not in agreement with the judgment in Rajan Bandekar (supra), it ought to have referred the matter for decision to a larger Bench. Instead, recording its disagreement, the subsequent Division Bench judgment in Subhash Laxman Nerurkar (supra) has taken a view contrary to the view expressed earlier in the case of Rajan Bandekar (supra) as to the interpretation of Circular dated 29th May 1992.
7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we find it appropriate to submit the papers of this case to the Hon'ble Chief Justice underChapter I Rule 8 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960 for referring the matter to a larger Bench for authentic pronouncement and decision on the issue relating to correct inte
