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

ules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Such mistakes can definitely be
corrected as and when noticed. Such advertisement inviting applications does not confer a right to the
candidates applying for such posts.
Gujarat PSC
19. It was contended further by learned Advocate Mr. Parmar on behalf of respondent no.1 that
in the State of Gujarat, Gujarati is the official language and there must be Rules of recruitment in
Gujarati which can be considered as original one and in absence of such Rules presumption may be
drawn in favour of respondent that the Gujarati version of the advertisement is more authentic. There
cannot be any dispute about Gujarati being official language in the State but no such presumption or
adverse inference can be drawn when specific rules are provided and there is an affidavit on record to
indicate that it was only a clerical error in the Gujarati advertisement while translating the qualifying
requirements of experience. As such there is no question of any conflicting or contrary interpretation
or views being possible because the English advertisement indicates the situation in consonance with
recruitment Rules which factum is not controverted by respondents.
20. As regards the contention that the G.P.S.C. could not have written letter Annexure “G” dated
23-4-1997 to respondent no.1 for the reason that after recommending the name of respondent no.2
to the Government it had become functus officio, this contention does not find any support from the
facts of the case. If Annexure “C” which is letter intimating respondent no.1 about his name having
been placed at serial no.1 in the select list is perused, it specifically indicates in paragraph (2) that the
recommendation is made prima facie accepting the certificates etc. produced by respondent no.1 and
that he shall be eligible to be appointed only after due verification of the documents. It is also stated
therein that if at any stage he is found to be lacking the qualifications stated in the advertisement or
Rules his candidature shall be cancelled and he will not be entitled to be appointed. Thus, it cannot be
said that Annexure “C” was the final letter or decision of the G.P.S.C. regarding selections/appointment
of respondent no.1. In fact, Annexure “G” is the final decision taken by the G.P.S.C. after perusal of
all the requisite papers and therefore Annexure “C” cannot be said to be final decision of G.P.S.C.
Besides this, it was only a letter of recommendation which was also conditional and the ultimate
decision was to be taken by the Government. The G.P.S.C. can be said to have worked as a
communicating agent only and the contention therefore cannot be accepted.
21. Mr. Parmar contended that by taking the action in the instant case an attempt is made to
amend the Rules by insisting on experience of five years after attaining academic qualification. It is not
251