Z.A. Haq, J.

1. Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. This Writ Petition and the other connected writ petitions raise the issue about the entitlement of the petitioner to join/continue on the post of “Labourer” Group “D” Non-Gazetted posts on Work-charged Establishment in the Public Works Department- P.W.D. of the State.

3. The relevant facts are:

An advertisement was published in the “Times of India” Goa Edition dated 11/2/2011 inviting applications for the posts of Labourer on Work-charged establishment of the Public Works Department of the Government of Goa. Forty posts of Labourers were advertised and the reservations were also shown. It was stated that the number of vacancies shown in the advertisement were tentative and likely to increase. It was further stated that the additional vacancies likely to occur within the validity period of DSC will also be considered for filling up from amongst the candidates who applied in response to the advertisement and selected from the panel. It stated that the reservation of the vacancies in different categories in respect of the additional vacancies would be done as per the posts based reservation roaster prescribed by the Government. Duly constituted Departmental Selection Committee conducted the interviews and prepared the Select List. The name of the petitioner appeared in the list of General category candidates at serial no.30. The recommendation of the DSC were accepted by the Government and a memorandum dated 4/11/2011 was sent by the Deputy Director of Administration, P.W.D. to the petitioner requiring the petitioner to communicate his acceptance of the offer for the temporary post of Labourer Group “D” Non Gazetted on the establishment in the P.W.D. in the Pay Band of Rs.4440-7440+Grade Pay of Rs.1300. The Deputy Director of Administration, P.W.D sent communication dated 12/12/2011 to the Medical Superintendent Hospicio Hospital Margao requesting for medical examination of the petitioner along with some other candidates. The petitioner was medically examined on 27/12/2011 and the fitness certificate was given to the petitioner. The petitioner did not receive any further communication in the matter and therefore, he had sent a notice dated 6/5/2013 through his advocate to the Deputy Director of Administration, P.W.D. The Deputy Director of Administration, P.W.D gave the reply dated 9/7/2013 and informed the petitioner that the offers of appointment which are issued cannot be given effect till the model code of Conduct was lifted. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not permitted to join the service even after the model code of conduct was lifted and therefore he is constrained to approach this Court for the redressal of his grievance.

The substantial challenge as raised by the petitioner appears to be that the petitioner is being deprived of his legitimate claim of joining the service as there is a change in the Government of the State.

4. The respondent no.2 has filed the reply and has opposed the claim of the petitioner on the following grounds:

(i) That 2523 candidates (1375 general and 1148 reserved) category were called for interview, out of which, 1423 candidates (749 general and 674 reserved category) appeared for the interview. The process of interviews continued for 32 days and every day it lasted for six hours 30 minutes and on an average a candidate appears to have been interviewed for 9 minutes only and this gave rise to an apprehension that the interviews were not held in fair and transparent manner.

(ii) The Joint Chief Electoral Officer by the communication dated 1/1/2012 had informed the respondent no.2 to defer the process of appointment till the Model Code of Conduct for the general elections of Goa Legislative Assembly 2012 was lifted.

(iii) That out of total 100 marks, 60 marks were assessed for good physique and 10 marks were assigned for minimum qualification i.e. literate and all the candidates qualified for these 70 ma