10.12.2012 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

33. So also in the case of Charanram (supra), posts advertised earlier ceased to exist, which is not<br />

so in the present matters, wherein the posts notified earlier on 3.1.1997 had not ceased/existed. On<br />

the other hand, before us, the number of posts had increased to 145 posts in the year 2006 as against<br />

35 posts notified in the year 1997. That apart, after noting what has been held in the decisions<br />

referred that a candidate has no vested right to get the process completed and at the most the Government<br />

could be required to justify its action on the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, what<br />

has been observed in the decision is as under:<br />

“17. In the facts of the present case it cannot even be suggested that the action of the<br />

State of Rajasthan was in any way arbitrary in interpreting the earlier recruitment process<br />

pursuant to the first advertisement dated 4 th November, 1993 Annexure-P1 as the Rules<br />

themselves had got amended and the posts earlier advertised had ceased to exist.”<br />

34. Similarly, the case of B.L.Gupta (supra) relates to promotions and not direct recruitment to<br />

the post to be filled up after calling for applications and selections through PSC and as such, even that<br />

decision cannot be of any help to the applicants in the present matters. Same could be said with<br />

regard to the decision in the case of Delhi Judicial Officers Assn. (supra), relied on for the applicants.<br />

35. So far as unreported Division Bench decision of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of<br />

Sri. K.Narasimhamurthy (supra) is concerned, as noted in that decision itself, the Division Bench was<br />

concerned with promotion and not direct recruitment and as such observed therein only that, even the<br />

principles laid down in the case of V.Rangaiah and B.L.Gupta (supra) have no application to the case<br />

before it. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that we are concerned with the direct recruitment<br />

and not the matter relating to promotion and as such, the observations made therein could be of no<br />

help to the applicants.<br />

36. Admittedly, the present applications relate to direct recruitment and not promotion. Further,<br />

Notification dated 3.1.1997 issued for 35 posts was earlier stayed and later withdrawn in the year<br />

2001, much earlier to notifying 145 posts in the year 2006. Old Rules, which were in force as on<br />

3.1.1997, came to be amended consciously in the year 2005. So, it cannot be said that even after<br />

amendment of Rules in the year 2005, those 35 posts notified in the year 1997 and covered by 145<br />

posts notified now, require to be filled up in accordance with earlier Rules of 1976 only, which are no<br />

more in force in the year 2006 when notified 245/145 posts. None of the decisions relied on for the<br />

applicants had such a situation.<br />

Karnataka PSC<br />

453

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!