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

which went un-responded. She then served a notice for demand of justice but that too with no avail.
Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, she made an application before this Tribunal which was
registered as O.A.No.393/92.
On 12.1.93 the counsel for the applicant submitted in the said application before the Tribunal that
P.S.C. has taken steps to set at rest the grievance of the applicant by appointing a Committee of
Experts to ascertain whether the examinations passed by the applicant and the certificates produced
by her satisfy the eligibility requirement for the post of Assistant Professor in Inorganic and Physical
Chemistry. This Tribunal on statement of the Counsel for the respondent No.1 disposed of the matter
in terms of the order re-produced below:-
“Shri Bagadia submits that P.S.C. has taken steps to set at rest the grievance of the
applicant by appointing a Committee of experts to ascertain whether the examinations
passed by her and the certificates produced satisfy the requirements of eligibility viz. for
appointment to the post of Assistant Professor Inorganic Chemistry and/or Physical
chemsitry. Shri Patne does not dispute it. Since the matter is already settled and steps
are likely to be taken with the consent of both parties, this petition is rendered infructuous
and is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.”
3. Thereafter nothing was heard from the respondents inspite of representation being made she
was not informed whether any committee as directed was constituted and of which experts. The
applicant, therefore, filed this application before this Tribunal. The grievance of the applicant in the
present application is that inspite of the applicant have cleared the written test and successfully faced
the oral interview her result is being not declared. The applicant was not given to know how the
Committee was constituted. She was also not called by the Expert Committee for explaining the
qualifications nor any expert from I.I.T. Kanpur was called for giving opinion and explaining the fact
that the M.S.C. degree of I.I.T. fulfils eligibility criteria of qualifications. The applicant has raised
various grounds to challenge the action of the respondents.
4. The respondent No.1 (P.S.C.) has submitted a parawise reply denying generally all the
averments made by the applicant in her application. It is unnecessary to reproduce the detailed
contents of the reply. However, the facts stated in para 1 are not disputed. Respondent No.2 has not
filed any reply.
Madhya Pradesh PSC
5. The main question in this case which comes up for consideration is whether the respondents
have acted in terms of commitment made before this Tribunal by the counsel for the respondents,
because the matter was disposed of on the statement made before this Tribunal by the Counsel for the
709