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

680
the names from that list as and when the Government sends requisition. The rule on the contrary
requires the Commission to held the selection as and when necessary when the requisition in that
behalf is sent by the Government. Clearly, therefore, the requirement of making selection by the
Commission arises whenever a requisition in this behalf is made by the Government. In other words,
the requisition by the Government and selection by the Commission are related to each other and the
purpose of requisition remains exhausted after selection has been made by the Commission in pursuance
thereof, therefore logically follows that whenever a requisition is made by the respondent Government,
the respodnent Commission is under a legal obligation to hold selection in the manner prescribed
under Rule 11 of the Rules. In the instant case the respondent State Government first issued a requisition
for selection of 5 candidates for appointment against 5 posts and the Commission made the selection
in pursuance thereof and submitted the select list as required under Rule 12 to the respondent State for
appointment. The process of selection initiated on this requisition came to an end after the appointment
of these persons by order dated 29.3.1982, vide Annexure P-3. Thereafter, if any other vacancy was
required to be filled by direct recruitment, it was the obligation of the respondent State to send a
requisition to the respondent Commission for making selection for the purpose. It is rather unfortunate
that the respondent State did not follow this Rule and instead of making a request as required, they
required the respondent Commission to send only one name from the reserved list. Their communication
dated 15.5.1982 in this regard falls short of a requisition contemplated under sub-rule (1) of Rule 11
of the Rules. In the absence of a requisition appointment of respondent no.3 against the sixth vacancy
which had arisen on 29.3.1982 would be illegal in view of the decisions of this Court in V.K.Seth Vs.
State (supra) and B.P.Pawar’s case (supra).
7. Even if it was to be assumed that the letter of the respondent State dated 15.5.1982 was a
requisition within the meaning of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 11 of the Rules, the appointment of respondent
No.3 would be illegal in the absence of any selection made by the respondent Commission. As
clarified earlier, it is the obligation of the respondent Commission to hold selection on receipt of
requisition from the respondent Government. The process of selection in order to satisfy requirements
of Article 16 of the Constitution must include consideration of all eligible candidates and judgment on
their respective merits after interviewing them. Admittedly, this had not taken place. Under the
circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that appointment of respondent No.3 vide
order dated 4.4.1983 is illegal.
Madhya Pradesh PSC