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

702
4. Only the Public Service Commission, respondent No.3, has filed its return. In substance they
have pleaded that the code No. as per the advertisement, for the post of Sales Tax Inspector was
No.15 whereas in the application form the applicant had filled in code No.17 which related, as per the
advertisement, to the post of Excise Sub Inspector. In this manner the Public Service Commission has
justified applicants’ selection for the post of Excise Sub Inspector and not for the post of Sales Tax
Inspector.
5. To satisfy myself I had directed that the original application form which was submitted to the
Commission may be produced. The same was produced before me. Under the heading “Important
Instructions”, in column No.8 various “codes” have been assigned to different services categories
Class-I, II and III. There is a specific instruction that preference has to be shown by the candidate
only by codes and not by reference to the post. In this application form for the post of Sales Tax
Inspector the code no. is 17 while for the post of Excise Sub Inspector of Code No. is 16. The
applicant in the application form gave his preference for class III services as follows:-
17/19/16/21/18/20.
Thus as per the “Important Instructions” in the application form issued by the Commission the first
preference in Class III services given by the applicant was for the 17. He had given third preference
for the post of Excise Sub Inspector for which the code No in the “Important Instructions” was 16.
6. It was not disputed that a person who had obtained lesser marks than the applicant has been
selected for the post of Sales Tax Inspector. In other words if the applicant has properly indicated his
first preference for the post of Sales Tax Inspector, he will be entitled to be selected and appointed as
Sales Tax Inspector only.
7. The Public Service Commission took the stand that under the advertisement (Annexure A-1)
code number assigned for the post of Sales Tax Inspector was 15 while code number 17 related to the
post of Excise Sub Inspector. That being so the Commission was justified in selecting the applicant for
the post of Excise Sub Inspector.
Madhya Pradesh PSC
8. After carefully going through the various documents filed by the parties, I am satisfied that the
plea raised by the Public Service Commission is unjust and hyper technical. The applicant was furnished
an application form by the Public Service Commission with a clear direction to verify the “Important