Mr. Prakash M. Parab vs State of Goa and others

S.J. Vazifdar, J.—We will presume for now that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the second respondent''s appointment as a Sub-Officer or his promotion as a Station Fire Officer or his further promotion as an Asst. Divisional Officer or even his appointment as Divisional Officer. We will even presume that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge or question the certificates issued by the original respondent No.5, Madurai Kamraj University. In other words, we presume, at this stage, that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs questioning the respondent No.2''s appointment or the promotions granted to him. There is, however, an aspect of this matter which is of some concern to us. By an order dated 2.6.06, respondent No. 2 was appointed as a Director of Directorate of Fire and Emergency Services. This order was modified by an order dated 14.6.2006 to the effect that the second respondent''s appointment as a Director of Fire & Emergency Services is only on an officiating basis. He has, thus, remained in this post on an officiating basis for 4 years. One Joseph Monteiro filed an affidavit dated 16.7.2009 on behalf of the Goa Public Service Commission (GPSC), respondent No.3. It is stated in the affidavit that the GPSC had advertised the post of the Director of Fire and Emergency Services, Government of Goa for the second time on 12.12.2008. Three applications were received. Two of the applicants did not possess the required experience of 3 years, as a Divisional Officer in the Directorate of Fire and Emergency Services. They were not eligible for being considered for the said post. In paragraphs 4,5 and 6 of this affidavit, it is stated as under :

4) I state that the third candidate was one Mr. Ashok Menon (respondent No.2). I state that he was the only candidate eligible on condition that the knowledge of konkani is relaxed and as such the GPSC vide letter dated 03/06/2009, called him for the interview, which was fixed on 15/06/2009.

5) I state that on 15/06/2009, Mr. Ashok Menon appeared before the Selection Committee convened by the GPSC. However, the Selection Committee did not make any recommendation, as the said candidate was not found suitable by the Selection committee for the said post.

6) I state that the GPSC has accordingly, vide letter dated 17/06/2009, informed the Government about the same.

What is of concern to us is that despite the GPSC having come to the conclusion that respondent No.2 is not found suitable for the post as important as that of the Director of Fire Services, we do not find any serious attempt being made to fill up the same with a suitable person. For instance, as stated by Mr. Lotlikar, if the post concerned cannot be filled in by direct recruitment, a suitable candidate can always be found on deputation.

The learned Advocate General stated that respondent No.1 has initiated the process once again through GPSC of appointing a person to the said post. The statement of the GPSC was recorded in an order dated 23.2.2010 that the process will be completed by 31.3.2010. Mr. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that the said post will never be filled up by a suitable candidate, as no attempt will be made to select a suitable candidate, as respondent No.1 desires, some how or other, to continue respondent no.2 in the said post, despite the fact that he has been found not suitable for the said post by the Selection Committee of the GPSC. In these circumstances, we find it necessary to keep the petition pending to see the further development made in the matter, particularly and especially in respect of the efforts on the part of respondent No.1 to fill up the post by a suitable person. In the circumstances and keeping all the contentions between the parties open, the matter is stood over to 12th July, 2010. Respondent No.1 shall file an affidavit, setting out the efforts made to fill up the said post. Mr. Lotlikar stated that the post can always be filled in by another person from any other Department who would be more suitable than respondent No.2. In the event of respondent No.2 being continued yet again, this application may be considered on the next occasion.