IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 52 OF 2009 MRS. LEOPODINA CARMLINA MENDES ... Petitioner Versus THE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY OF THE FRANCISCAN (HOSPITALLER) SISTER THROUGH THEIR SECRETARY AND 8 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the respondent no.2. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Additional Government Advocate for the respondent no.3. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 28th January, 2009 P.C. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Administrative Tribunal regarding the seniority list maintained by the respondent no.1 where the petitioner is serving as a teacher. 2. The petitioner came to be appointed as a teacher in the Pre-primary section of the school run by the respondent no.1 w.e.f. 17.06.1985. It is alleged by the petitioner that during the course of her employment, she was required to work as a teacher even in the Primary section of the school run by the respondent no.1 during the period from 1986 to 1989. It is her contention that in the seniority list prepared for the year 2000, she was at serial no.7, in the year 2003 she was at serial no.5 and in the year 2004 she is placed at serial no.13. The main contention of the petitioner is that the seniority has been fixed by the respondent no.1 and has been approved by the respondent no.3 which has been wrongly fixed and that she was never heard before she was placed at serial no.13 as per seniority of the year 2004. 3. The respondent no.1 and 2 are Educational Institutions, respondent no.3 is the Director of the Education while the respondent no.4 to 9 are the teachers who could be affected by any orders passed by this Court. They are the teachers in the said school. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she was not heard while her seniority was re-fixed in the year 2004. Re-fixation of seniority has certainly affected her civil rights and she has a right to approach this Court. Fixation of the seniority can be said to be vitiated as the petitioner was not heard before re-fixation of the seniority. In the instant case the petitioner was never heard in the year 2004, when her seniority was re-fixed and she was put below the present respondent no.4 to 9. 5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, I find that the matter needs to be remitted back to the respondent no.3 for re-fixation of the seniority of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the following directions are issued: (a) The matter stands remitted back to the respondent no.3 for fixation of the seniority of petition vis-a-vis respondent no.4 to 9. (b) The petitioner shall make a representation to the respondent no.3 as to on which ground her seniority be fixed. (c) The respondent no.4 to 9 are also directed to submit reply to the petitioner 's representation that may be made before the concerned authority. (d) The concerned authority shall consider the representation and the reply. He shall also give necessary hearing to the respondent no.4 to 9 and thereafter fix the seniority of the petitioner. (e) The exercise of re-fixation of the petitioner should be completed by 15.04.2008. (f) The petitioner is directed to submit the representation within one week before the Director and the respondent no.1, 2 and 4 to 9 shall submit their say before the Director within one week after the representation is filed by the petitioner. Copies of petition should be supplied to the respondent no.1 who shall supply the copies to the other teachers i.e. respondent no.4 to 9. 6. The order passed by the Tribunal confirming the seniority is set aside. The statusquo as of today shall be maintained until the Director decides the dispute. The Director is supposed to decide the question of seniority uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. 7. Notice to respondent no.4 to 9 is dispensed with on account of the fact that an opportunity is being given to them to be heard before the Director. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. lh/.