the goan I network
PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa directed the Chief Secretary to issue appointment letters to five candidates who were to be appointed as police sub-inspectors but were ‘left out’ of the recruitment process on account of “fortuitous circumstances.”
The High Court directed that the appointment letters be issued within two months and latest by November 1, 2019.
Five candidates -- Kunal Naik, Allaudin Khan, Gaurav Naik, Navaneet Goltekar and Virag Pawar had approached the Bombay HC at Goa after they were not appointed as PSIs solely because some posts had lapsed and were yet to be revived on the day the Department Selection Committee (DSC) met to finalise the names.
The Superintendent of Police (HQ), Panaji, issued advertisement No.1/2016, inviting applications for direct recruitment to 34 posts of PSIs. The advertisement indicated that out of these 34 posts, 17 were unreserved posts, 4 were reserved for ST, 9 were reserved for OBC, 2 were reserved for ex-serviceman and 2 were reserved for sports persons.
However, before the Department Selection Committee could actually meet to recommend the names of the selected candidates, on diverse dates between 27.08.2016 and 19.06.2017, 21 out of 34 advertised posts lapsed.
The Goa Police sent a proposal to the Home Department to revive the 21 posts. In the meanwhile, the other 13 posts also lapsed between 31.08.2017 and 31.12.2017 and another proposal was sent to revive these 13 posts.
The first set of 21 posts were revived on September 25, 2017 and so the Police Authorities, wrote a letter to the Personnel Department seeking permission to continue with the recruitment process by selecting the candidates against the live posts and preparing a wait list, against which the candidates could be appointed no sooner the remaining 13 posts are actually revived.
The Personnel Department informed the police authorities that they could proceed with the recruitment process against the live posts. However, there was no specific response on the proposal to maintain a wait list and appoint waitlisted candidates against the posts.
When the DSC actually met, it recommended 21 candidates for appointments to the post of PSIs, as against 21 revived posts of PSIs while the remaining 13 were left out since their posts were yet to be revived even though they were shortlisted.
Within hardly 45 days from the appointment, the balance 13 posts of PSIs were revived and the five candidates, naturally sought for appointments as against the revived 13 posts.
However, the police authority refused appointments on the sole ground that when the DSC met only 21 posts of PSIs had been revived and were live and therefore, no recommendations could be made to any posts, beyond the revived 21 posts as on the date the DSC actually met.
Aggrieved, five of the candidates approached the High Court.
“The recommendations were not made in respect of balance posts, only because, as on the said date, the process of revival of the balance 13 posts, which had considerably advanced, was not formally completed. Thus, the determinative factor, was not some lack of merit, but the fortuitous date on which the DSC actually met,” the High Court ruled.
“According to us, such a fortuitous circumstance cannot be the sole determining factor, in a matter of this nature. All that the petitioners seek is that they not be discriminated against, only on the basis of some fortuitous circumstance that the DSC was held on a particular day, when formally only 21 posts had been revived and not on some slightly later date, by which time all the 34 vacancies came to be formally revived,” the High Court ruled.
