Team Herald
PANJIM: In a major decision, the High Court of Bombay at Goa has quashed the appointments of over 30 appointees to the posts of Assistant Data Entry Operator (ADEO) taking cognisance of petition challenging the sudden change in selection criterion post-declaration of exam results.
A group of individuals, in 2016, had approached the High Court challenge the selection and appointments of around 56 “selected and appointed” candidates and sought from the court appropriate order to strike down the results. The petitioners had also sought appropriate writ to direct the State government to appoint the petitioners to the posts of ADEO with retrospective effect and with all consequential benefits.
During the hearings and arguments, Advocate Vijay Palekar, appearing for the petitioners submitted that the selection process post-declaration of the results of the written test is in breach of the Government’s Office Memorandum dated March 5, 2007 which was binding. He submitted that the government’s decision amounted to a change of the rules of the game after the game has fairly advanced, and it was ex facie arbitrary and unconstitutional.
He also pointed out that the changed criterion ignored merit based on written tests and almost entirely emphasised on marks in oral interviews and extracurricular activities while claiming that 50 marks out of 100 were arbitrarily allotted to candidates who possessed the minimum essential qualifications of SSCE, thereby increasing the actual weightage to interview marks to 30 percent.
“This was impermissible, considering the nature of the posts to which appointments were to be made. Ten per cent marks were arbitrarily allotted to extracurricular activities when this criterion found no mention in the Recruitment Rules or the advertisement issued. The changed criterion was never in the public domain and was disclosed only after the institution of Writ Petition No. 638 of 2016,” the counsel argued.
He also submitted that though the challenge is to the appointment of 56 appointees, the petitioners do not seriously press challenge to the appointment of two respondents because even after the adoption of the existing and the correct process, these respondents might still find a place in the merit list. He further submits that this challenge is mainly to the general category appointees, since the petitioners belong to the general category and will gain nothing even if the appointments to the reserved category are struck down.
The counsel appearing for the State and the Chief Electrical Engineer (Electricity Department), on the other hand sought for dismissal of the petition claiming they approached the court since they were unsuccessful to the posts. “Minor deviation from the OM dated March 5, 2007 does not vitiate the entire selection process. Criterion adopted was uniformly applied and further, the same was fair and based on objective parameters. Only 15 per cent marks were allotted for the oral interview and there is no presumption that those who may have done well in the written test must get higher marks at the interview or vice versa,” the government advocate said.
The bench of Justice M S Sonak and M S Jawalkar, on hearing the petition, noted that they are “satisfied that the petitioners in the present case, cannot be denied any relief by invoking the equitable principle of estoppel.”
“This petition was instituted before the information about the changed criteria was furnished to the petitioner despite repeated requests for furnish of the same. No sooner, it was realised that the selection process might be challenged by the petitioner, it appears that the process of issuance of appointment orders was fast-tracked. In such circumstances, there is no point in criticising the pleadings in the petition. Even otherwise all material pleadings are on record and no prejudice whatsoever is demonstrated by any of the respondents. The contention that any foundational pleadings are absent, therefore, cannot be accepted,” the bench observed.
The court also stated that the prayers in the petition seek 100 per cent weightage only on the marks in the written test. Such relief may not be available, since the advertisement had clearly stated that the selection would be based on the written test and interviews. However, this is not a ground to dismiss the petition or to deny the petitioners reliefs in the molded form.
The bench, after further observations, disposed of the petitions by quashing and setting aside the selection and appointments of 32 respondents to the posts of ADEOs. The State and the Electricity Department are also directed to prepare a select list of candidates falling within the ratio of 1:3 as provided in Clause (l) of the OM dated March 5, 2007 based on merit to be determined in the order of marks secured in the written test results declared on January 10, 2016 and the marks out of 15 allotted for the oral interview awarded by the DSC in this selection.
The department is also asked to issue appointment orders to the 32 most meritorious candidates based upon the select list to be made as aforesaid, subject no doubt to such candidates complying with usual requirements like medical examination, verification of character, etc.
The order also clarifies that respondents, whose appointments are now struck down, may be permitted to continue in service up to January 31, 2021 on the same terms and conditions but without claiming any equities. The exercise of preparation of select list and issuance of fresh appointment order must be completed by the State government and the Electricity Department by January 31, 2021 with fresh appointment orders effective from February 1, 2021.
