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

788
them, this post, along with other posts, were referred to the Commission for recommending suitable
candidates for promotion in the year 1999. The case of the petitioner was again considered but he
was not recommended due to availability of better candidates. The State respondents have taken a
stand that the petitioner being eligible his case was considered by the Commission in all the selections
held in the years 1996, 1999, 2000 and 2001 but he was not recommended as his over all grading
was lower than that of the other candidates.
5. The stand of the Commission, in short, is that in the year 1996, selection was held for three
posts of Research Officer and in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 10.3.89, prescribing the
guidelines for comparative assessment of the candidates, out of the seven candidates so considered,
all except the petitioner, secured a grading of “very good”. As the petitioner was graded “good”, he
was not recommended for promotion. In the year 1999, selection was held by the Commission in
which 10 candidates were considered where one was rated “outstanding”. Whereas seven others
secured a grading of “very good”, the petitioner and another were graded as “good”. In terms of the
Office memorandum date 3.9.98, then in force, five candidates were recommended and the petitioner
having a grading of “good” had to be excluded.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the background of the above pleadings, has contended
that due to the failure of the State respondents in holding the selection every year, there has been no
consideration of his case in the eye of law as he had been pitted against his junior Officers with better
service records unfairly at a point of time much beyond when the vacancies had arisen. As it was
incumbent on the State respondents to hold selection every year, rejection of his candidature on the
ground of availability of better candidates in a selection against posts clubbed together has resulted in
discrimination and arbitrariness, denying the petitioner the right to be considered for promotion he urged.
7. The learned State Counsel in reply, with reference to the pleaded facts, has submitted that the
contention of the petitioner has no factual basis inasmuch as in absence of any vacancy during 1997
and 1999 there was no scope for the State respondents to hold any selection. The petitioner having
been considered in all the selections held cannot make any grievance of non-consideration of his case
for promotion.
Mizoram PSC
8. The learned counsel for the Commission, while endorsing the arguments of the learned State
Counsel, has submitted that the selections were held by the Commission strictly adhering to the guidelines
contained in the relevant Govt. memoranda and as the petitioner after due consideration was not
recommended for promotion, his grievance is wholly misplaced.