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

662
Madhya Pradesh PSC
to an experience of teaching. There is no material to indicate that this respondent No.3 was involved
in research work nor it appears from the return of the Public Service Commission that they considered
his work and felt that this period could be considered as time spent in research work. There is also
nothing in the return of the Public Service Commission to indicate that they examined his studies in
Rourkee and found that this time he spent in practicals and, therefore, they considered this period
spent in Rourkee as period spent in practicals. In absence of any one of these things, it is plain that this
candidate respondent No.3 did not fulfill the required qualification of having about 5 years teaching
experience and, therefore, the selection made by the Public Service Commission and appointment
made thereafter by the State Government is in violation of the rule and also in violation of the
advertisement and, therefore, this being in contravention of the rule having the force of law, could not
be allowed to remain.
25. The second question that is material in this case is that after the advertisement but before this
interview and long before the appointment of respondent No.3, the State Government accepted the
recommendation of All India Council of Technical Education and by notification issued by the State
Government, the new pay scales and the requirement of education qualifications under the new pay
scales was notified by orders of the State Government dated 6.6.1980. It is not disputed by learned
counsel appearing for the State Government that after this notification all appointments have to be
made in accordance with this new order and it practically supersedes the rule under which the
advertisement was issued as it was stated in this order -
“Omitted as the matter is in Hindi”
It is, therefore, plain that after 6.6.1980, the respondent No.3 could only be selected and appointed
as a Reader if he fulfilled the qualifications as indicated in the order of the State Government dated
6.6.1980. It is also not in dispute that on the date on which the interview was held, this respondent
No.3 did not fulfill the requirement as contemplated in the orders of the State Government dated
6.6.1980. It is also plain that the only exception permissible under this order dated 6.6.1980 was
about Lecturers who are already working and who have not the requisite qualifications and, therefore,
it was provided that they will be given the new pay scales but they are expected to acquire the
necessary qualifications within a period of 5 years and if they did not do so, they will not be entitled to
increments. As regards Readers, which is the relevant post for the purposes of this petition, no such
exception was made and it is, therefore, plain that after the orders passed by the State Government
dated 6.6.1980 appointment of respondent NO.3 could not be done.