Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT GOA BENCH
M.S. SONAK, NUTAN D SARDESSAI, JJ.
Kunal Sanjay Naik - Appellant
Versus
State of Goa, Through Its Chief Secretary - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 222 of 2019, 1165 of 2018, 186 of 2019, 24 of 2019, 228 of 2019
Decided On : 21-08-2019
Constitution of India - Article 14- Claim of compensation - posts of sportspersons – Jurisdiction - Posts were revived by the Home Department. The Police Authorities, accordingly addressed a letter dated 20.10.2017 to the Personnel Department seeking permission to continue with the recruitment process by selecting the candidates against the live posts and preparing a wait list, against which the selected/wait listed candidates could be appointed no sooner remaining 13 posts are actually revived - Personnel Department vide communication dated 16.11.2017 informed the Police Authorities that they could proceed with the recruitment process against the live posts. However, there was no specific response on the proposal to maintain a wait list and appoint wait listed candidates against the posts for which the revived had already been applied for – Held, In East Coast Railway and Another Vs Mahadev Appa Rao and others, (2010) 7 SCC 678 the Honble Supreme Court has held that though a candidate who has passed an examination or whose name appears in select list does not have an indefeasible right to be appointed, yet appointment cannot be denied arbitrarily, nor can the selection be cancelled without giving proper justification. If the Court finds that appointment is denied arbitrarily or the selection is cancelled without giving proper justification, appropriate directions can be issued in the matter - In Director, SCTI For Medical Science & Technology & Another Vs M. Pushkaran, (2008) 1 SCC 448 the Honble Apex Court was concerned with a case where the select list was abandoned after making some appointments and decision was taken to contract out work relating to security guards just as the Respondents turn had come for issue of offer of appointment. The High Court directed the issue of offer of appointment to the Respondent and the Honble Apex Court upheld such direction by observing that there was no valid reason or justification to deny appointment to the Respondent. In this case, Honble Apex Court considered several earlier precedents on the issue. Most of these precedents hold that successful candidates may not have any indefeasible rights to be appointed if the Government, bonafide has some justification to deny appointment. However, this does not mean that the State has a licence to act in an arbitrary manner or to ignore the select panel or to decline to make appointments on its whims. There has to be a justifiable reason to deny appointment to a person who is on the select panel – Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
M. S. SONAK, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the parties state that the issue involved in all these petitions is one and the same. Accordingly, they submit that these petitions may be disposed of by a common judgment and order, by treating the Writ Petition No.222 of 2019 as the lead matter.
3. In all these petitions, the Petitioners seek an appropriate writ, order and directions to the Respondents to appoint the Petitioners to the post of Police Sub- Inspector (PSI) in pursuance of selection process commenced vide advertisement No.1/2016 published on 7th July, 2016.
4. The Superintendent of Police (HQ), Panaji, issued advertisement No.1/2016, inviting inter alia applications for direct recruitment to 34 posts of PSIs. The advertisement indicated that out of these 34 posts, 17 were unreserved posts, 4 reserved for Scheduled Tribes, 9 reserved for Other Backward Class, 2 reserved for ExServiceman and 2 reserved for Sportspersons.
5. In pursuance of the advertisement, several candidates, including the Petitioners applied for appointment to the posts of PSIs. Between the period 25.10.2016 and 01.11.2016, prescribed tests in relation to inter alia, physical fitness etc., were held by the Respondents. On 20.11.2016, a written test was also held by the Respondents. However, before the Department Selection Committee could actually meet to recommend the names of the selected candidates, on diverse dates between 27.08.2016 and 19.06.2017, 21 out of 34 advertised posts lapsed.
6. The Respondents, themselves, on 19th June, 2017 itself, sent a proposal to the Home Department for revival of these 21 posts. This is borne out from the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Respondents.
7. The pleadings in the petitions as well as the affidavit in reply on behalf of the Respondents indicate that further 2 posts lapsed on 31.08.2017, 2 posts on 30.09.2017, 2 posts on 31.10.2017, 4 posts on 30.11.2017 and 3 posts on 31.12.2017. Accordingly, on 09.08.2017, a further proposal was sent to the Home Department for revival of these 13 posts of PSIs as well.
8. On 25.09.2017, 21 posts were revived by the Home Department. The Police Authorities, accordingly addressed a letter dated 20.10.2017 to the Personnel Department seeking permission to continue with the recruitment process by selecting the candidates against the live posts and preparing a wait list, against which the selected/wait listed candidates could be appointed no sooner remaining 13 posts are actually revived.
9. The Personnel Department vide communication dated 16.11.2017 informed the Police Authorities that they could proceed with the recruitment process against the live posts. However, there was no specific response on the proposal to maintain a wait list and appoint wait listed candidates against the posts for which the revived had already been applied for.
10. On 28.02.2018, the Department Selection Committee actually met. From the record it is apparent that the DSC did not, undertake any selection procedure as such, but, merely relied upon the merit list prepared in the written examination held on 20.11.2016 and on the said basis, recommended 21 candidates for appointments to the post of PSIs, as against 21 revived posts of PSIs.
11. In pursuance of the aforesaid recommendation of the DSC, the Respondents, on 11.10.2018, appointed 21 candidates and sent them for basic training at Nashik, which is requirement under the Rules.
12. It is necessary to mention that the DSC in its meeting held on 28.02.2018 also prepared a wait list, which includes the Petitioners in these petitions, by indicating category wise merit positions. There is really no dispute that after the merit positions of 21 appointed PSIs, the Petitioners, on merits, stand at merit positions 22 to 34 category wise. This position is clearly reflected in the minutes of the DSC which met on 28.02.2018.
13. The appointments as against 21 posts were made on 11.10.2018 on basis of reco
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
