LISETTE E R CAMARA Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working as Assistant Physical Education Officer(hereinafter referred to as APEO) with respondent no.2. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, she challenges the appointment of respondent nos.4 and 6 to the same post and her reversion orders dated 3-2-2005 and 4-2-2005. She also prays that her services as APEO be treated as on regular basis w.e.f. 12-7-2002 i.e. from the date of her initial appointment as APEO. and in the alternative that she be shown as appointed to the post on regular basis w.e.f. 1-3-2003. THE petition as filed originally, challenged the appointment of respondent nos.3 and 5 also as APEO She, however, amended the petition to delete respondent nos.3 and 5 from the petition and gave up the challenge to their appointments.

(2.) ON 5-4-2002, an advertisement was published in newspaper by respondent nos.1 and 2 inviting applications for four posts of APEO in the Directorate of Sports, Campal, Panaji, Goa, to be filled by direct recruitment. Out of the four posts, one was reserved for scheduled caste(SC), one for scheduled tribe(ST), one for other backward caste(OBC) and one for general category. The advertisement mentioned that if suitable candidates were not to be available for the reserved category the posts would be filled by general category candidates. The petitioner who was already working as Taluka Sports Organizer in the office of respondent no.2 since the year 1987 applied for the said post and was selected. She was placed second on the merit list of general category candidates after one Shri Navin Archarya. Thereafter, on 8-8-2002, respondent no.6 was appointed as APEO to the post reserved for SC, one Kiran Dhargalkar to the post reserved for OBC and Navin Archarya to the general category post. For the fourth post reserved for ST, no candidate belonging to ST was available. The petitioner was therefore appointed to that post on adhoc basis w.e.f. 12-7-2002 vide appointment letter dated 8-8-2002. The petitioner accepted the adhoc appointment and started working as APEO. During the pendency of the petition she was reverted to the post of Physical Education teacher(PET) vide order dated 3-2-2005 and transferred to Ponda as a Taluka Sports Organizer(TSO) vide order dated 4-2-2005. The petitioner then amended the petition to challenge her reversion.

(3.) IN any case on merit also we find it difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner as regards the advertisement. Respondent No.2 in her affidavit-in-reply to oppose the petition has pointed out that the advertisement dated 5-4-2002 included the posts reserved for ST/SC/OBC in view of long standing backlog of vacancies as per the roaster. As per the remark of Assistant Director SC/OBC(Welfare) Directorate of Social Welfare, Panaji and as per the notification of reservation issued in the year 1995-96 reservation kept for ST. 1/2% reservation covered roaster at ration nos. 4, 17, 30, 43, 56, 69, 81 and 94. Shri C. N. Mahalgi was promoted to the post of APEO from promotional quota thereby 50% quota was completed and in order to fulfill the remaining 50% from direct recruitment the post of APEO reserved for ST candidate was advertised. Since no ST candidate was available the post was filled by general candidate on adhoc basis for one year by appointing the petitioner to the post. IN view of these facts on merit also there can be no substance in the contention of the petitioner.