Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
DIPANKAR DATTA, M.S. SONAK, JJ.
Aslambi Shaikh and Others - Appellants
Versus
Goa Housing Board - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2663 of 2021 (Filing)
Decided on : 31-03-2022
For the Appellant :Mr. Nitin N. Sardessai, Mr. G. Panandikar and Ms. Gautami Kamat, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. A.D. Bhobe, Ms. Kalpa Govenkar, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Recruitment Regulations, as amended, governed the recruitment process, and the petitioners were not entitled to a third chance to pass the departmental examination.
Headnote:
Recruitment - Goa Housing Board - 1966 Rules, Recruitment Regulations - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the decision of the Board to fill two vacant posts of Accountant by direct recruitment. The petitioners, holding substantive posts of Upper Division Clerks, sought regularization of their services as Accountant upon withdrawal of the advertisement for direct recruitment. The court found that the petitioners had not satisfied the eligibility criteria for promotion and had failed to pass the departmental examination, thus rejecting their claim for regularization. The court held that the Recruitment Regulations, as amended, governed the recruitment process and that the petitioners were not entitled to a third chance to pass the departmental examination. The court also noted that the petitioners did not have the educational qualifications for applying as a direct recruit, further negating their claim for regularization. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no legal infirmity in the decision-making process.
Fact of the Case:
The Managing Director of Goa Housing Board published an advertisement inviting applications for two vacant posts of Accountant by direct recruitment. The petitioners, holding substantive posts of Upper Division Clerks, sought regularization of their services as Accountant upon withdrawal of the advertisement. The Board rejected their prayers, leading to the institution of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had not satisfied the eligibility criteria for promotion and had failed to pass the departmental examination, thus rejecting their claim for regularization. The court held that the Recruitment Regulations, as amended, governed the recruitment process and that the petitioners were not entitled to a third chance to pass the departmental examination. The court also noted that the petitioners did not have the educational qualifications for applying as a direct recruit, further negating their claim for regularization.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to regularization as Accountants despite not satisfying the eligibility criteria for promotion and failing to pass the departmental examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to a third chance to pass the departmental examination and that the Recruitment Regulations, as amended, governed the recruitment process. The court also noted that the petitioners did not have the educational qualifications for applying as a direct recruit, further negating their claim for regularization.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no legal infirmity in the decision-making process.
JUDGMENT :
1. The Managing Director, Goa Housing Board, (hereafter “the Board”, for short), published an advertisement dated 13.11.2021 inviting applications from eligible candidates, inter alia, for filling up two vacant posts of Accountant by direct recruitment. The said advertisement is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition dated 17.12.2021 at the instance of the petitioners.
2. The petitioners are holding substantive posts of Upper Division Clerks in the Board. While the petitioner no.1 has been granted ad hoc promotion on the post of Accountant vide order dated 08.09.2015, the petitioner no.2 has been granted similar such promotion by an order dated 27.04.2018. Immediately after the advertisement was issued, the petitioners by separate but identically worded representations dated 18.11.2021 called upon the Managing Director of the Board to regularize their services as Accountant on regular basis upon withdrawal of such advertisement. The prayers of the petitioners for regularization were not accepted by the Board and, in effect, such representations stood rejected in the meeting of the Board held on 20/10/2021. By the same decision which was arrived at in such meeting, it was decided to issue the advertisement for direct recruitment on the two posts of Accountant. Rejection of the said representations by the Board was followed by the impugned advertisement, which appear to be the trigger for institution of this writ petition.
3. The case pleaded in the writ petition in support of the prayers for quashing and/or setting aside of the decision dated 20/10/2021 and the advertisement dated 13.11.2021 as well as the process of recruitment initiated in terms thereof may be noted.
4. In terms of the provisions contained in notification dated 25.12.1966 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Goa, being additions to the Goa, Government Accountants (non-ministerial, non-gazetted) posts Recruitment Rules, 1966 (hereafter the “1966 Rules”, for short), provisions were made for conducting the Initial Recruitment Examination - Training and Final Examination of the Accountants. Paragraph 19 under Section III of the notification ordained that any candidate seeking appointment in the cadre of Accountant in any of the departments of the Government, either by promotion or by direct recruitment, would be allowed the maximum of three chances for passing a departmental examination and that without extending opportunity to the petitioners to avail of the opportunity to clear the departmental examination availing the maximum of three chances, the Board has initiated the process for direct recruitment on the vacant posts of Accountant in contravention of the provisions of the Goa Daman and Diu Housing Board Cadre Recruitment of Staff, Functions, Powers and Sphere of Duties of Officers and Other Employees Regulations 1974, as amended from time to time (hereafter “the Recruitment Regulations”, for short). According to the petitioners, the post of Accountant in the Board has to be initially filled up by promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio of 75:25. If eligible candidates are not available for promotion, the promotional posts may be filled up by direct recruitment. If the post of Accountant can neither be filled up by a promotion nor by direct recruitment, such post can be filled up by transfer on deputation. Insofar as promotion to the post of Accountant is concerned, the feeder cadre would be that of the Upper Division Clerks of the Board. However, only those clerks having three years’ service, out of which those having at least two years’ experience as accounts clerk and who has passed the departmental examination for Accountants held by the Directorate of Accounts, would be eligible for consideration. It is the further case of the petitioners that paragraph 7 under Annexure I of the notification published in the Official Gazette dated 10.10.1983, being the Fourth Amendment Regulations of the Recruitment Regulations, m
