The court emphasized the importance of participating in the selection process without objection and clarified the eligibility criteria for appointment based on creamy layer status.

R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.

1. The petitioner is working as Assistant Physical Education Officer (hereinafter referred to as APEO) with respondent no.2. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, she challenges the appointment of respondent nos.4 and 6 to the same post and her reversion orders dated 3-2-2005 and 4-2-2005. She also prays that her services as APEO be treated as on regular basis w.e.f. 12-7-2002 i.e. from the date of her initial appointment as APEO. and in the alternative that she be shown as appointed to the post on regular basis w.e.f. 1-3-2003. The petition as filed originally, challenged the appointment of respondent nos.3 and 5 also as APEO She, however, amended the petition to delete respondent nos.3 and 5 from the petition and gave up the challenge to their appointments.

2. On 5-4-2002, an advertisement was published in newspaper by respondent nos.1 and 2 inviting applications for four posts of APEO in the Directorate of Sports, Campal, Panaji, Goa, to be filled by direct recruitment. Out of the four posts, one was reserved for scheduled caste (SC), one for scheduled tribe (ST), one for other backward caste (OBC) and one for general category. The advertisement mentioned that if suitable candidates were not to be available for the reserved category the posts would be filled by general category candidates. The petitioner who was already working as Taluka Sports Organizer in the office of respondent no.2 since the year 1987 applied for the said post and was selected. She was placed second on the merit list of general category candidates after one Shri Navin Archarya. Thereafter, on 8-8-2002, respondent no.6 was appointed as APEO to the post reserved for SC, one Kiran Dhargalkar to the post reserved for OBC and Navin Archarya to the general category post. For the fourth post reserved for ST, no candidate belonging to ST was available. The petitioner was therefore appointed to that post on adhoc basis w.e.f. 12-7-2002 vide appointment letter dated 8-8-2002. The petitioner accepted the adhoc appointment and started working as APEO. During the pendency of the petition she was reverted to the post of Physical Education teacher(PET) vide order dated 3-2-2005 and transferred to Ponda as a Taluka Sports Organizer(TSO) vide order dated 4-2-2005. The petitioner then amended the petition to challenge her reversion.

3. The petitioner who appears in person contends that there could not have been a reservation either for scheduled tribes or scheduled castes since in terms of the notification of the year 1996 which was in force on the date the vacancies to the post of APEO arose, only ½ % of the posts were reserved for ST category and 2% of the posts were reserved for SC category. At the relevant time the post reserved for ST category was already filled in by a ST candidate Mr. Malgi. Similarly, two posts reserved for SC category had been filled in by Mr. N. G. Akargekar and Uday Navelkar. Therefore, according to her the advertisement issued by respondent nos.1 and 2 ought to have been at least for two posts for general category and the petitioner being second in the merit list ought to have been given regular appointment w.e.f. 12-7-2002 to the post of APEO.

4. Perusal of the petition shows that there is no challenge included therein to the advertisement dated 5-4-2002 issued by respondent nos.1 and 2. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the submissions advanced by Shri S. Bandodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 and Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondent nos.3 to 6 that the petitioner cannot be allowed to canvass any contention based on any defect in the advertisement for want of challenge thereto and also since she participated in the selection process under the very advertisement without demur. The petitioner has amended the petition to delete respondent nos.4 and 6 therefrom and restricted the challenge t