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

12. The respondent No.3 in his return has alleged that he had sent his application through proper
channel and an advance copy was sent to Public Service Commission also. Allegations about the
influence exercised by respondent No.3 are denied. It is also stated that although respondent No.3
had gone away to Roorkee for his Master’s degree yet, in view of F.R. 9(6) Supplementary Rule (i),
it was contended that he will be deemed to be a Lecturer through out and the privileges of a Lecturer
will be available to him and on this basis, it was contended that the period during which he was in
Rourkee for his Master’s degree will also be counted as his experience as Lecturer and, therefore, he
would be eligible for consideration.
Madhya Pradesh PSC
13. From these respective pleadings of parties, the facts which emerge as undisputed are:-
(1) that respondent No.3 submitted an application in accordance with advertisement
No.1 of 1980 issued by Public Service Commission sometimes in February 1980
for the post of Reader in Telecommunication;
(2) that the respondent No.3 sent an application directly to the Public Service
Commission and an application through proper channel did not reach the Public
Service Commission and Public Service Commission allowed him to face the
interview on the basis of a No Objection Certificate issued by the Education
Department;
(3) that before the date on which the interviews were held, a notification bringing the
new pay scales in force has already been issued as admittedly it was issued on
6.6.1980 and the requirement of educational qualifications and experience under
this new pay scale was such that respondent No.3 could not have been considered
as he had not obtained a Master’s degree till that date in telecommunication.
(4) It is also not in dispute that from the abstract of the application, it is not very clear
as to when he left the Engineering College at Jabalpur and went Roorkee for studies
to secure a Master’s degree.
14. The only controversy, leaving aside the allegations made by the petitioners about influence and
other things and denied by the respondents in their return, is as to whether respondent No.3 was
eligible in terms of the advertisement for being called for interview as, in view of the fact that he had left
the Engineering College, Jabalpur and gone to Rourkee for studies, he had not completed 5 years
teaching experience.
15. The other controversy that appears to be is that after the Government’s order dated 6.6.1980
applying the new pay scales and laying down that all future appointments will be in the new grade,
could respondent No.3 be appointed on the basis of the educational and other qualifications required
under the old rules when he was not qualified according to the new pay scales and recruitment and
could he be appointed on the old pay scale and when there was no such exception for the post of
Reader in the order issued by the State Government dated 6.6.1980.
655