IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 282 OF 2010 SHRI. ELVIDIO B. D'SOUZA ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. D. P. Bhise,Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Vivek Rodrigues,Additional Government Advocate For 1,2, & 3 Coram:- A. S. OKA & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 6th July, 2010 P.C: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the 1,2nd and 3rd respondent. 2. The substantive reliefs claimed in this petition are in terms of prayer clauses "a" and "b", which read thus: a) That this Hon'ble Court be please to set aside the communication dated 16th July, 2009 as not an speaking order and further issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or command to respondent State Government to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 27.01.2009 in terms of direction to absorb and/or to regularize the Petitioner on the permanent post of Craft Instructor (Turner). b) That this Honourable Court be please to declare that Petitioners transfer from Tool Room and Training Centre before its closure at ITI Mapusa in response to Department circular of availability of post would tantamount to Petitioner's appointment on regular post of Craft Instructor (Turner). 3. We find that the Petitioner had earlier filed writ petition no.435 of 2009 in this Court. On 3rd November, 2009, the petition was disposed of by passing the following order: "Nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents would consider the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders,within six weeks from today. In view of the statement made on behalf of the respondents, nothing survives in this writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The respondents will abide by their statement. No order as to costs. 4. It appears that on the basis of the said order, a communication dated 28th January, 2010 was issued by the Assistant Director (Admn.), Government of Goa. What is stated in the said communication reads thus: "Sub: Refer order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 4.1.2010 in Writ Petition No.436 of 2009. This is to inform you that this department had already conveyed the decision of the Government about non-acceptance of extension of deputation period vide memorandum No.1/(EBDS)/MAP/2008/1105 dated 16.12.2008, along with directions to inform the department about your willingness to accept the contractual appointment as suggested by the Government, which you have not replied and made a representation dated 27/1/2009 which was again not accepted by the Governemnt. The said fact was made known to you vide letter No.1/EBDS/EST/2009/1985 dated 2.7.2009 by the Principal, I.T.I., Mapusa, and thus your submission before the Hon'ble High Court that no action has been taken on your representation is misleading. You are once again informed that Government has not accepted your representation as it does not fit in the rules." 5. We find that on the face of it the first,second and third respondents have not complied with the statement made by the them before this Court, on 3rd November, 2009. What was expected of the said respondents was to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh. A speaking order ought to have been passed on the representation. However, not only that the respondents have not passed a speaking order, but they have come out with the case that the earlier representation made by the petitioner was not accepted by the Government. In fact in the said communication dated 28th January, 2010,it is observed that the statement made before this Court that no action has been taken on the representation was misleading. Such observation could not have been incorporated in the communication dated 28th January, 2010, in as much as in the absence of the petitioner, a statement was made on 3rd November, 2009, before this that the representation of the petitioner will be considered and appropriate order will be passed. Therefore, the communication dated 28th January, 2010 deserved to be quashed and set aside as the same is completely illegal. 6. We cannot keep the petition pending in as much as in terms of order dated 3rd November, 2010, the first to third respondents will have to pass an order on the representation made by the petitioner. 7. Hence, we dispose of the petition by issuing the following directions: a) The communication dated 28th January, 2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. b) We direct the first to third respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. c) The first, second and third respondents shall pass a speaking order on the representation within a period of period of four weeks from today. d) We keep all the contentions of the petitioner open. e) Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. A. S. OKA, J. F. M. REIS, J. ap/-