KASHINATH SHETYE Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have sought a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw or cancel all orders retaining retired / superannuated officers in employment in the posts under the Government by way of extension in service or on contract basis appointments. The petitioners have also sought an order directing the respondents to fill the posts by making regular promotions, transfers / appointments of eligible persons in terms of the recruitment rules and by following the due procedure prescribed by law and the rules. 2(A). By an order dated 22th April, 2010, we allowed the petitioners to amend the petition. By this amendment, the petitioners challenged the continuation in service by extension or on contract basis of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and 8. (B). Respondent Nos. 6,7 and 9 whose appointments were also challenged, were deleted by separate orders passed earlier in view of their engagement in any manner having been discontinued.

(2.) The learned Advocate General made a statement that the appointment of respondent No.8 expires on 31st May, 2010 and the government is not going to extend the same nor is the government going to engage his services in any other manner including by way of grant of extension or on contract basis, short term or otherwise. The statement is accepted. In view thereof, it is not necessary to consider the case in respect of respondent No.8 either. Thus the hearing was confined, apart from the general questions to the case regarding respondent Nos. 2 to 5 only. (C). Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 were impleaded by an amendment. Respondent No.10 is the Goa Public Service Commission (GPSC). Respondent No.11 is the Goa Government Employees' Association, a registered association.

(3.) The petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 9 are Junior Engineers and petitioner No.2 is an Assistant Executive Engineer in the Electricity Department of the Government of Goa. The petitioners claim to be concerned about the welfare of the State of Goa and the interest of its citizens as also the proper administration of the State. The petitioners have questioned the alleged practice of respondent No.1 of continuously granting appointments to posts by way of extensions and contracts without giving an opportunity to all the members of the public eligible as per the rules of appointment to the concerned posts or by depriving the persons in the feeder grades of the benefit of promotion to the higher posts without there being any special or extraordinary reasons to justify the same. They contend that the same is not in public interest. It was contended that the practice deprived the officers in service of an opportunity of being considered for promotion, transfer or appointment, and as a consequence thereof, their career prospects are prejudiced. It was contended that this practice has been implemented without even resorting to the alternate modes of filling the concerned vacancies as provided in the recruitment rules framed by the Government in respect of the said posts.