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

Madhya Pradesh PSC
respondent State Government, as aforesaid the impugned order dated 4.4.1983 was passed. It is not
disputed that before passing the aforesaid order, the post was neither advertised nor applications
received nor any selection made for the said purpose. The petitioners feel aggrieved by this appointment
and challenge the legality thereof in this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that an appointment to a vacant
post can be made only in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules by selecting candidates for the purpose
after interviewing them. He further submits that the waiting list prepared in pursuance to the advertisement
dated 18.12.1980 had no relevance to the vacancy which has arisen on 29.3.82 and hence the respondent
No.3’s appointment was contrary to the Rules. It is also submitted that the Rules prescribe a quota
for direct recruitments and promotees but the respondent Government had taken no action to fill the
quota reserved for promotees thereby creating an analogous situation having serious adverse consequence
upon the petitioners who are in line for promotion. It is also submitted that the respondent no.3 does
not have the necessary experience for being considered for appointment as a Reader and hence her
appointment is illegal. The learned Govt. Advocate, however, submitted that the respondent State
Government is making every effort to fill the quota reserved for promotees and the D.P.C. is likely to
meet very soon for the said purpose. He also submitted that waiting list remained valid on the date the
name of the respodnent no.3 was received and hence the respondent State did not make any mistake
in appointing her. Learned Govt. Advocate also relied on Rule 21 of the Rules which according to him
permits relaxation of Rules for purposes of appointment. The learned counsel appearing for respondent
no.3 besides adopting the submission of the respondent Government submitted that there was sufficient
compliance of Rule 11 of the Rules and no one had been prejudiced by breach, if any.
5. Before considering the submissions of the parties it may be useful to refer to the Rules in so far
as they are relevant for purposes of this petition. It is not disputed that Rules were brought in force on
11.5.1970 and all appointments thereafter have to be made in accordance with these Rules. Schedule
to the Rules provides that appointment to the post of Readers would be 50 percent by direct recruitment
and 50 percent by promotion. Rule 11 provides procedure for direct recruitment and requires the
respondent Public Service Commission to hold selection as and when necessary when the requisition
in this behalf is made by the Government. The Rules do not provide for issuance of an advertisement
but it was admitted at the Bar that there is a circulation of the respondent Public Service Commission
enabling them to notify all vacancies by issuing advertisement in several newspapers and inviting
677