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

“It must further be realized by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a
particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a
matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved
are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees
but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications
mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with
inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications
are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice.
We are afraid that the Tribunal lost sight of this fact.”
(3) AIR 1997 SC 2110 : RAJ KUMAR v. SHAKTI RAJ: (para 16)
“Yet another circumstance is that the Government had not taken out the posts from the
purview of the Board but after the examinations were conducted under the 1955 Rules
and after the results were announced, it exercised the power under the proviso to para 6
of 1970 notification and the posts were taken out from the purview thereof. Thereafter,
the Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the candidates. The entire
procedure is also obviously illegal……But in this case the Government have committed
glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under the 1955
Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the
purview of the and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore,
the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this
case. Thus, we consider that the procedure offered under the 1955 Rules adopted by
the Government or the Committee as well as the action taken by the Government are not
correct in law.”
(4) (2003) 9 SCC 193 : STATE THROUGH NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU v.
KULWANT SINGH: (paras 23 and 24):
Karnataka PSC
“The word ‘department’ by its very nature, is not capable of a precise definition. Given its
ordinary meaning in the context of Governmental functions, it connotes a branch or division
of Government administration. For the sake of convenience Government work is divided
subject-wise or function-wise, and each such Division may be called a department. The
word ‘department’ is capable of wider meaning as also a narrower meaning. The meaning
of the word may differ having regard to the context in which it is used. Rule 2 of the
Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 provides:
‘The business of the Government of India shall be transacted in the ministries,
departments, secretariats and offices specified in the First Schedule to these
Rules (all of which are hereinafter referred to as ‘departments’)’.
24. In the absence of any precise definition of the word ‘department’ it must be given its natural
and ordinary meaning, unless the legal context in which the word is used requires a different meaning.”
(5) (1998) 1 SCC 727 : STATE OF H.P. v. J.L.SHARMA AND ANOTHER: (para 6):
525