CYRIL E. FERNANDES versus SR. MARIA LYDIA & ORS.

CYRIL E. FERNANDES versus SR. MARIA LYDIA & ORS.

The appellant teacher is not directly concerned with the question whether the rules in the Grant-in-aid Code conferred an enforceable right upon the school management against the Government; the scope of the appeal must be limited to what directly concerns the appellant, whose legal rights are not directly affected by the impugned judgment. Remarks on the conduct of the appellant made by the Judicial Commissioner are held unjustified and should not have been made.

Parties
Appellant: Cyril E. Fernandes; Respondent No. 1: Sr. Maria Lydia; Respondent No. 2: Director of Education, Goa, Daman and Diu; Respondent No. 3: Under Secretary, Government of Goa, Daman and Diu; Respondent No. 4: Government of Goa, Daman and Diu
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 September 1977
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Order Dated 20 11 75 of the Judicial Commissioner, Goa, Daman and Diu, in Special Civil Application No. 100 of 1974
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Termination of Services, Grant in Aid Code, Scope of Appeal, Locus Standi
Service Law Administrative Law Termination of Services Grant in Aid Code Scope of Appeal Locus Standi

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cyril E. Fernandes

Appellant

Sr. Maria Lydia

Respondent No. 1

Director of Education, Goa, Daman and Diu

Respondent No. 2

Under Secretary, Government of Goa, Daman and Diu

Respondent No. 3

Government of Goa, Daman and Diu

Respondent No. 4

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Order Dated 20 11 75 of the Judicial Commissioner, Goa, Daman and Diu, in Special Civil Application No. 100 of 1974

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Judicial Commissioner was in error in issuing a writ to enforce provisions of the Grant-in-aid Code at the instance of the teacher
  2. 2 Whether the teacher is an aggrieved party regarding the enforceability of rules under the Grant-in-aid Code

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant teacher is not directly concerned with the question whether the rules in the Grant-in-aid Code conferred an enforceable right upon the school management against the Government; the scope of the appeal must be limited to what directly concerns the appellant, whose legal rights are not directly affected by the impugned judgment. Remarks on the conduct of the appellant made by the Judicial Commissioner are held unjustified and should not have been made.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Remarks on the appellant's conduct in the impugned judgment unjustified and should not have been made.
  • No order as to costs.