Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1368 (BOM)

Nirmala Misquita v. State of Goa

2012-07-25

A.P.LAVANDE, U.V.BAKRE

body2012
Judgment : (A.P. Lavande, J.) Affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4 is taken on record. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. This petition was filed challenging the appointments of respondents no.4, 5 and 6 as Principals of different schools run by respondent no.3. This Court on 15/09/2004, issued Rule only in respect of promotion of respondent no.4 as Headmaster. 4. As such, the petition filed by the petitioner challenging the promotions of respondents no.5 and 6 as Principals is deemed to have been rejected qua respondents nos.5 and 6. 5. Insofar as respondent no.4 is concerned, the relevant prayers sought by the petitioner are as under: “(c) A writ of certiorari or a writ in nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to quash and set aside the selection of respondent no.4 made by the Promotion Committee on 14/07/2003 and his consequential appointment vide letter dated 16/08/2003(Exh.J), made by the respondent no.3 in the post of Principal of Fr. Basilio Andrade Memorial Higher Secondary School, Majorda, Salcette Goa. (e) A writ of certiorari or a writ in nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to quash and set aside the letter dated 16/08/2003 (Exh.J.) appointing the respondent no.4 as Principal of Fr. Basilio Andrade Memorial Higher Secondary School, Majorda.” 6. Affidavit filed by respondent no.4 discloses that although appointment letter dated 16/08/2003 was given by respondent no.3 appointing respondent no.4 as Principal of the school, actually respondent no.4 was never appointed as Principal of Fr. Basilio Andrade Memorial Higher Secondary School run by respondent no.3. 7. In view of the above, it is evident that the appointment letter dated 16/08/2003 issued to respondent no.4 was never given effect and pursuant to the said letter, respondent no.4 did not act as Principal in the school run by respondent no.3. This being the position, the reliefs (c) and (e) sought by the petitioner, are not available to the petitioner. On this short ground only the petition is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.