Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

178
cadre of DFDO and others is regulated and guided by a set of statutory rules from under Article 309
of the Constitution of India and known as “the Recruitment Rules for the post of District Fishery
Development Officer/Assistant Director of Fisheries/Farm Manager, 2002”. The respondent authorities
having published an advertisement on 29.4.2005 for filling up two posts of DFDO, the petitioners and
others duly applied for the same. After undergoing the process of recruitment test as conducted by the
APPSC, the petitioners were unsuccessful in the said recruitment test whereas the respondent Nos 5
and 6 were selected and the respondent No 7 was put in the waiting list as per results published by the
APPSC on 31.1.2006. The petitioners have challenged the selection process conducted by the
APPSC on the ground that the Commission was not constituted as per rules and the subject expert of
the Commission was not a person from out side the State but the Director of Fisheries was invited as
subject expert in the selection process. Further case of the petitioners is that as per the recruitment
rules the ratio of post to be filled up in the cadre of DFDO between the departmental candidate and
the direct recruits is 50:50. But the respondent Nos 8, 9 and 10 have been illegally allowed to hold the
posts in the cadre of DFDO, which are reserved to be filled up by way of direct recruitment without
making any advertisement and without holding any recruitment test. Though the petitioners are
departmental candidates they are competent to apply even as direct candidates upon advertisement
but the respondent authorities have adopted pick and choose policy and the respondent Nos 8, 9 and
10 were appointed on contract basis vide order No.Fish/E(G) 92/2000 dated 8.12.2000 and thereafter
they were appointed in the said posts on regular basis vide order No Fish/E(G) 152/Vol-II dated
27.10.2003 without advertising the posts. It is alleged that the said appointment of the respondent
Nos 8, 9 and 10 as illegal and arbitrary as they were appointed in total violation of the existing
statutory recruitment rules. With these allegations, the present writ petition has been filed praying for
cancellation of the appointments of the respondent Nos 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
2. Heard Mr T.Son, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr A Apang, learned senior GA, AP.
In spite of service of notice, the private respondents chosen not to appear in this proceeding. Although
Mr T Pertin, learned Standing Counsel for the APPSC, appeared before this court on 1.8.2006 and
submitted that he has received certain instruction and would file affidavit-in-opposition and the matter
was kept for hearing today the learned Standing counsel for APPSC neither filed any affidavit nor
appeared before this Court today.
Arunachal Pradesh PSC