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. 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 on the threat of failure in examinations. These students categorically stated that the Petitioner never troubled or dealt with them inappropriately or assaulted them. The J.M.F.C. even recorded statements of the student's parents, who stated that signatures of the students were obtained without informing or explaining to the students or the parents the contents of such writings. The parents maintained that the students had never given any complaints against the Petitioner. 10. The Children's Court issued a notice to the complainant, and finally, on perusing the entire final report and the statements of the victim girls, recorded that the complaint was false and hence 'B' final summary was granted by order dtd. 27/12/2019. The parents maintained that the students had never given any complaints against the Petitioner. 10. The Children's Court issued a notice to the complainant, and finally, on perusing the entire final report and the statements of the victim girls, recorded that the complaint was false and hence 'B' final summary was granted by order dtd. 27/12/2019. Respondent No.2-School, through its Chairman, Mr Jose Peter D'Souza, instituted a Criminal Revision Application after a delay of 240 days. The delay was condoned by an order dtd. 13/6/2023, and the Revision Application is pending admission before the learned Single Judge of this Court. 11. The Petitioner has pleaded that at no stage were any adverse remarks in the confidential rolls ever communicated to the Petitioner. Upon a query from the Court, Mr Mulgaonkar learned Senior Advocate for the School Management submitted that some adverse remarks were shown to him by the School Management. Still, upon his query whether the same was communicated to the Petitioner, Mr Mulgaokar was informed that there was no such communication. Mr Mulgaonkar, however, submitted that a memo dtd. 16/7/2020 was communicated to the Petitioner. 12. The memo dtd. 16/7/2020 says nothing about the allegation of inappropriate behaviour with the students but alleges that the Petitioner used to eat snacks before the teaching period, reach late to class, look outside during the class timings, etc. Mr Lotlikar submitted that the Petitioner responded to this memo on 20/7/2020; on 1/8/2020, the School Management declined to accept the explanation. Mr Lotlikar submitted that the Petitioner has also represented on 15/2/2021 and 23/2/2021 against the said memo, which is pending consideration. 13. The Petitioner, on 10/10/2022, represented to the Management and the Director of Education about regularly filling up the post of Headmaster of the said School. Since there was no response, the Petitioner instituted Writ Petition No. 2582/2022(F). This Petition was disposed of by order dtd. 18/1/2023 by recording the statement of Mr Mulgaonkar on behalf of the School Management that regular DPC will be convened within a month to fill up the post of Headmaster regularly. Directions were issued to fill up the post of Headmaster regularly within a maximum of 45 days. This Petition was disposed of by order dtd. 18/1/2023 by recording the statement of Mr Mulgaonkar on behalf of the School Management that regular DPC will be convened within a month to fill up the post of Headmaster regularly. Directions were issued to fill up the post of Headmaster regularly within a maximum of 45 days. The Court clarified that prayer for appointing the Petitioner as Incharge Headmaster was not considered because the Court expected that the School Management would scrupulously comply with the directions and fill up the post of Headmaster regularly within 45 days. 14. The School Management convened a DPC meeting on 6/3/2023 at 2.30 p.m. at North Education Zonal Office, Mapusa, Goa. The Minutes of the DPC have been placed on record by the School Management. At this DPC, two out of three members recommended the promotion of Subhash (R.5) even though the Petitioner was senior most in the feeder cadre. Ms Anjali Malik, the Director of Education's representative, lodged her dissenting note by pointing out that the Petitioner was the senior-most teacher in the feeder cadre, and there was no record of communicating any adverse remarks to him. 15. The Minutes were forwarded to the Director of Education along with a prayer that Subhash (R.5) be appointed as the Headmaster regularly, given the opinion of two out of three members that constituted the DPC. 16. The Directorate of Education, vide communication dtd. 12/4/2023, declined to approve Subhash's (R.5) promotion given the observations in para 5 of the DPC minutes. Despite such approval being declined, the School Management continued Subhash (R.5) as the Headmaster. There is no clarity whether Subhash was continued as Headmaster regularly or as an Incharge. 17. Be that as it may, Rule 76(5) provides that where any appointment made by the managing committee of an aided school is not approved by the Director, such appointment may (pending the regular appointment to the post) be continued on an ad-hoc basis for a period not exceeding three months and the salary and allowances of the person so continued on ad-hoc basis shall qualify for the computation of the aid to be given to such school, provided the provision of rule 75 is not contradicted. 18. Therefore, given the disapproval by the Director of Education, Subhash (R.5) could have continued on an ad hoc basis only for three months. 18. Therefore, given the disapproval by the Director of Education, Subhash (R.5) could have continued on an ad hoc basis only for three months. Therefore, it is declared that Subhash's continuance as Headmaster, past three months, was without authority of law, and the said School cannot claim any aid for payment of Subhash (R.5) in the post of Headmaster though the said School can continue to claim aid for payment of salary to Subhash (R.5) as a trained graduate teacher. 19. A perusal of the DPC minutes shows that the DPC comprised : (i) Mrs Vaijainti Pokle, Manager, St. Dominic Savio High School; (ii) Mrs Juliet Lobo, Educationist; and (iii) Mrs. Anjali Malik, Dy. Education Officer (NEZ), Mapusa Representative of the Education Department. 20. Admittedly, Vaijayanti Pokle was not the Chairman of the Managing Committee. However, Mr Mulgaonkar explained that the Chairman Advocate Jose Peter D'Souza excused himself due to ill health. Mr Mulgaonkar also submitted that Advocate Jose Peter D'Souza had not only resigned as the Chairman of the Managing Committee but further appointed Advocate Saudagar in his place. No approval from the Director to effect such change was pointed out. Mr Mulgaonkar pointed out that there was no Vice-Chairman or Vice-President in the Managing Committee, and the next person in the hierarchy was the Manager, Mrs Vaijayanti Pokle. 21. The above explanation can be accepted for yet another reason. Advocate Jose Peter D'Souza instituted the criminal revision application against the Petitioner in his capacity as the President/Chairperson of the Managing Committee of the said School. Under such circumstances, it was only appropriate that Advocate Jose Peter D'Souza does not associate himself with the DPC to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Headmaster. In such matters, it is not only the actual bias but a reasonable likelihood of bias that is sufficient. Therefore, the Chairperson/President was right in not associating himself with the DPC. 22. However, the same logic should be applied to the participation of Mrs Juliet Lobo, who is admittedly Advocate Jose Peter D'Souza's wife. Even her association with the DPC vitiates the constitution of the DPC. Besides, Mr Lotlikar pointed out that Mrs Juliet Lobo was also a teacher in the said School (retired) and, therefore, could hardly qualify as some "Educationist ". Even her association with the DPC vitiates the constitution of the DPC. Besides, Mr Lotlikar pointed out that Mrs Juliet Lobo was also a teacher in the said School (retired) and, therefore, could hardly qualify as some "Educationist ". In the peculiar facts of this case, we think that even Mrs Juliet Lobo being the wife of Advocate Jose Peter D'Souza, should not have associated herself with the DPC. 23. The recommendations of the DPC warrant interference because of the defective constitution of the DPC. Besides, the DPC or, instead, Ms Pokle or Ms Lobo, the two members of the DPC, have referred to adverse memos given to the Petitioner and the molestation case registered against him under the Children's Act. These are the only reasons the two DPC members gave to deny promotion to the Petitioner even though the Petitioner was the senior-most teacher in the feeder cadre. As noted earlier, the Petitioner is almost 12 years senior to Subhash (R.5). 24. Regards the adverse memos, it is accepted that no such adverse memos were communicated to the Petitioner. In the absence of such communication, adverse memos, if any, could not have been relied upon. Such reliance would violate the principles of natural justice and fair play. A representation was already pending against the memo dtd. 16/7/2020. This memo referred to trivial acts such as eating snacks before teaching periods or looking outside the class. Mr Lotlikar pointed out that the Petitioner was a renowned maths teacher. Even he was nominated to the Board of Studies by the Goa Board. Based on this memo, there was no question of bypassing the Petitioner's seniority position. Besides, the Police had already filed a report that the complaint of molestation against the Petitioner was false and baseless. The Childrens Court accepted this report. Therefore, the Director's representative recorded her dissenting note in the DPC minutes. 25. Ms Pokle, in her capacity as the Manager of the Managing Committee of the said School, wrote to the Direction of Education on 19/4/2023, seeking a review of the DPC by pointing out that the observations of the Director's nominee may not be correct. After considering this, the Director of Education declined to approve the promotion of Subhash (R.5). 26. Accordingly, the recommendation of the DPC, which, in any case, was not approved by the Director of Education, was illegal and defective. After considering this, the Director of Education declined to approve the promotion of Subhash (R.5). 26. Accordingly, the recommendation of the DPC, which, in any case, was not approved by the Director of Education, was illegal and defective. Firstly, there was an issue with the composition of the DPC, and secondly, the two members of the DPC relied upon uncommunicated adverse remarks/memos. The two members of the DPC also failed to consider that the investigating authorities had already filed a 'B' summary final, which was accepted by the Children's Court by order dtd. 27/12/2019. Therefore, the two DPC members were not justified in relying upon this circumstance. 27. Mr Lotlikar, relying upon Teja Bhise vs State of Goa through Chief Secretary, Government of Goa and ors. - 2021 G.L.D. Online 3153 and Shubhangi Manerkar vs State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and ors. - 2019 G.L.D. Online 3374 submitted that this is a fit case to direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner. He submitted that in any case, this is a fit case to appoint the Petitioner as Incharge Headmaster, pending the convening of DPC to consider filling up the post regularly. 28. Since there is no clarity about all the records, this is not a case where we should depart from the usual rule of leaving it to the DPC to consider the case of all eligible candidates. However, Ms Juliet Lobo, the wife of Advocate Jose Peter D'Souza, cannot associate herself with the DPC. Mr Mulgaonkar pointed out that the new Chairperson/President was Advocate Saudagar. The record discloses that Advocate Saudagar had initially filed the complaint against the Petitioner with the Calangute Police Station. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for him to associate with the DPC. Ms Vaijayanti Pokle can, therefore, continue to be a member of the DPC. Considering that the Managing Committee or several of its members were instrumental in filing complaints against the Petitioner with the Police Station, it would be appropriate if the Director of Education nominates an Educationist on the DPC. The Director should also nominate any other officer as his representative on the DPC. If the Director himself wishes to be a member of the DPC, there should be no difficulties. Such directions are necessary in the peculiar facts of the present case. Without such directions, a fair consideration of the candidatures of eligibles would be almost impossible. The Director should also nominate any other officer as his representative on the DPC. If the Director himself wishes to be a member of the DPC, there should be no difficulties. Such directions are necessary in the peculiar facts of the present case. Without such directions, a fair consideration of the candidatures of eligibles would be almost impossible. Besides, the school has been without a regular Headmaster for too long. 29. This Petition is, therefore, disposed of by directing that a fresh DPC should be convened to make recommendations to regularly fill up the post of Headmaster in the said School. The DPC must also consider the deemed date for promotion with or without partial financial benefits. This DPC can comprise the following : (a) Mrs. Vaijayanti Pokle, Manager; (b) Directors nominee; (c) an Educationist to be nominated by the Director, given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 30. The DPC must meet and make its recommendations within 8 (eight) weeks from today. The recommendations must be forwarded to the Director of Education within 8 (eight) weeks from today. The Directorate must process the same expeditiously and according to law and communicate its decision to the Managing Committee and the Petitioner. The Managing Committee must then act accordingly as expeditiously as possible. 31. The said School/Managing Committee must immediately appoint the Petitioner as Headmaster Incharge in place of Subhash (R.5). If, for any reason, the Managing Committee/the said School fails to comply, the Director of Education must ensure compliance and if necessary, issue necessary orders appointing the Petitioner as the Headmaster Incharge. This exercise must be completed within a week from today. 32. This Court is not inclined to adjudicate on the Prayers for Compensation or even Costs. The School's criminal revision is pending. DPC is yet to consider the matter. However, it would be open to the petitioner to institute a civil suit for such relief if so advised. If such a suit is filed, all parties contentions are left open. 33. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 34. There shall be no order for costs.