PANAJI
The Supreme Court of India has stayed the orders of the Bombay High Court at Goa which had ordered the reinstatement of six staff of the Goa State Pollution Control Board who were terminated in 2014.
The Supreme Court, in its order granted the GSPCB interim relief in the form of a stay after the Pollution Board approached the Supreme Court with a special leave petition challenging the orders of the High Court that were delivered in September this year.
The High Court had ordered the reinstatement of six staff members who were employed on the posts of Scientific Assistant, Senior Laboratory Assistant and Junior Laboratory Assistant in GSPCB.
The staff members were among those who were recruited by the GSPCB in the year 2012 and whose appointments were questioned by certain other unsuccessful candidates alleging irregularities in the recruitment process.
Based on the allegations, an Inquiry Officer was appointed who after conducting an inquiry and more particularly without giving opportunity to the selected candidates, found that there were some irregularities in the process conducted by the Departmental Selection Committee who granted extra marks to the Petitioners though they were not entitled to.
The inquiry officer, after deducting the so-called extra marks given by the Departmental Selection Committee, found that selected candidates were not eligible to be placed in the select list and accordingly observed that the placement of the candidates in the merit list was erroneous.
On the basis of the inquiry report submitted, show-cause notices were issued to the Petitioners directing them to appear before the Member Secretary and to submit their say as to why their services to the respective posts should not be terminated.
All the Petitioners objected to such a report which was submitted without giving any opportunity to the Petitioners. However, the GSPCB terminated the services of the Petitioners by rejecting their replies. Being aggrieved by such termination of services, that too after a period of about six months from the date of their appointments, each of the Petitioners filed writ petitions before the High Court thereby challenging such termination orders.
The High Court “while reinstating the candidates ruled that the reasons for abolishing the posts on which Petitioners were appointed, appear to be colourful exercise of powers and with a mala fide intention to prevent the petitioners from joining such posts” and ordered their reinstatement.
