R V GAITONDE Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before us is seeking direction for his appointment to the post of Principal of the Goa Pharmacy College and expugning adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports and consequently confirmed, for the academic year 1996-97. The brief facts leading to this petition may be stated as under:

(2.) DURING the pendency of this petition, the petitioner had also submitted a representation against the ACRs and the said representation came to be decided by respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 14-4-1998. As per the said order, the ACRs were confirmed. The petitioner, accordingly, amended the petition and prayed for quashing of the said order passed by respondent No. 2. In the meanwhile, fresh advertisement was released for the post of Principal on 12-9-1997 by respondent No. 4. In response to the said advertisement, selection process went through and respondent No. 8 came to be selected. However, the offer made to respondent No. 8 clearly stipulated that the said appointment would be subject to the outcome of this petition and, it was under these circumstances, that respondent No. 8 did not join. The post has thus remained vacant as at present. The Government has once again approached the Commission for initiating fresh action for the appointment to the post of Principal.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the whole action has been engineered with an intention to ensure that the petitioner is not appointed to the post of Principal by respondent No. 2 and the ACRs were communicated belatedly after the Commission had intimated the petitioner regarding his selection and recommendation to that effect having been submitted to the State Government. He also urged before us that the Principal had retired on 31-1-1997 and he had no authority to write ACRs, in case he had done so and at the same time, respondent No. 3 who was continued as Principal on ad hoc basis has taken a stand that he did not write ACRs and his role was limited merely to communicate the said ACRs to the petitioner on 4-7-1997. The petitioner also contends that inspite of bright academic record and fulfilling the requirements for the post of Principal, respondents No. 3 and 5 have taken steps in collusion and with the assistance of the authorities concerned to deprive him the higher post of Principal and this is mainly because of the academic rivalry or hatred. It is also contended that respondent No. 5 was not at all eligible for being appointed as Principal and, even in the year 1995, the petitioner ought to have been appointed to the post of Principal on regular basis instead of respondent No. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted before us that the decision of the Government in rejecting recommendations made by the Commission is illegal, unconstitutional and is vitiated on all counts inasmuch as there was no material before the State Government in respect of adverse ACRs to reject the recommendations made by the Commission. He has also contended that the vigilance inquiries which were initiated against the petitioner have been closed which would indicate that there was nothing adverse against the character or integrity of the petitioner.