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

Madhya Pradesh PSC
called for interview. It is alleged by the petitioners that respondent NO.3 because of the influence,
secured an invitation for interview which was to be held on 25.8.1980
(5) The petitioners alleged that they were apprehensive about the interviews and, therefore, they
made a representation on 3.9.1980 to the State Government complaining about the selection of
respondent No.3 by the Public Service Commission. Respondent No.3 was selected by Public
Service Commission and his name was recommended for appointment as Reader and it is alleged by
the petitioners that on the date of selection i.e. 25.8.1980, the respondent No.3 did not possess the
requisite qualifications as contemplated under the notification of the State Government dated 6.6.1980
and, therefore, was not entitled to be considered for appointment.
(6) The respondent No.3 completed his M.E. in Telecommunication in November-December
1980 from Rourkee University and became eligible for holding the post of Reader/Assistant Professor.
It is alleged by the petitioners that respondent No.3 could exercise influence in the State Government
and kept his appointment pending till he obtained the requisite qualifications and ultimately, an order
dated 18.6.1981, Annexure-D was passed appointing respondent No.3 as a Reader. It is further
alleged that this appointment is in pursuance of the advertisement published in February 1980. It is
alleged by the petitioners that the interviews held on 25.8.1980 on the basis of the old pay scale and
requirements of educational qualifications is contrary to law.
(7) The pay scale of Rs.720-1250 was abolished by the orders of the Government dated 6.6.1980
and the new pay scale of Rs.1200-1900 was brought into force. But respondent No.3 was appointed
in the old pay scale of Rs.720-1250 which was not in existence on the date on which the appointment
was made. It is also stated in the appointment order that he is required to obtain the requisite qualifications
within 5 years on condition which could not have been put in the case of respondent NO.3 and this
was contrary to clause 3 of State Government’s notification dated 6.6.1980. It is alleged that under
orders of the State Government dated 6.6.1980, Annexure-A, the future appointments and selections
could only be on the basis of new qualifications and it is alleged that respondent No.3 is the only
person who has been given this favour of selection on the basis of old qualifications and the appointment
under the old pay scale. It is further alleged that all others in different subjects appointed on the basis
of this advertisement are persons who held qualifications in accordance with the Government’s order
dated 6.6.1980 and, therefore, have been given the new pay scales which are in existence at present.
Thus, according to the petitioners the appointment of respondent No.3 in non-existing pay scale is
nothing but a favour shown to him and this, according to the petitioners, is in violation of Article 16 of
the Constitution of India. The petitioners, therefore, have challenged the appointment of respondent
No.3, being contrary to the provisions of Constitution and not in accordance with law.
649