ANITA Y NAIK Vs. SPEAKER GOA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned Counsel Mr. Ramani for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Nadkarni on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Lower Division Clerk somewhere in the year 1989. According to the petitioner, from 02-05-1989, she joined at Goa Legislature Secretariat. The petitioner and respondent nos. 5 to 10 were confirmed to the post of Junior Assistants and some other employees were confirmed in their respective posts. According to the petitioner, in the order, names were mentioned as per the seniority. The petitioner claims that respondent nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were shown at serial nos. 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 respectively. The petitioner was shown at serial no. 24 and respondent no. 10 at serial no. 27. Further, the petitioner states that respondent No. 11 had taken over as a Secretary at Goa Legislature Secretariat. The petitioner alleged that her husband Shri Yuvraj Naik working as Section Officer at Goa Legislature Department took exception to abuses hurled by respondent no. 11 and further alleged that on 06-07-2000, the work alloted to her husband Mr. Yuvraj Naik was withdrawn by various communications. According to the petitioner, somewhere on 17-05-2001, on her application for withdrawal of amount from provident fund account, memorandum was issued to her directing to explain as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against her for failing to declare her assets in terms of Rule 18 of the Central Civil Services Conduct Rules. Similarly, a memorandum was also issued to her husband Mr. Yuvraj Naik. The petitioner alleges that out of more than 70 employees, only petitioner and her husband were served with such memorandum. The petitioner contends that on 12-06-2001, adverse remarks were entered in her confidential report for the year 2000-2001. Further, the petitioner contends that such adverse remarks were entered in her confidential report at the instance of respondent no. 11 due to enemity between respondent no. 11 and her husband. On 19-06-2001, memorandum was issued to the petitioner and her husband in terms of Rule 18(4) of the C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules. This memorandum was pertaining to furnishing of details of family members. The petitioner represented somewhere on 11-07-2001 to respondent no. 4, the Board, against the adverse remarks/entries. In the month of April, 2002, the petitioner made a representation against inaction of the respondent no. 11 to release the provident fund. The petitioner further states that respondent nos. 5 to 10 were promoted on 08-04-2002 to the post of Assistants. Representation made by the petitioner was rejected on 22-05-2002. This representation was on adverse entries taken in the confidential report of the petitioner. Application made by the petitioner seeking withdrawal from the provident fund account was rejected in May, 2002. The petitioner contends that such a rejection was on the ground of non-mentioning of the status of the petitioner's husband as nominee for her provident fund account. Somewhere in the month of May, 2002, respondent no. 11 was relieved from the duty of Secretary at Goa Legislature Secretariat. On the above contentions, the petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition. The said writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 01-02-2003.

(3.) SENIOR Counsel Mr. Nadkarni as of today explains the position. During the pendency of writ petition, the petitioner is promoted to the post of Assistant. This order is on record at Exhibit 'C' at page 204. As such the grievance of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant stands satisfied. So far as respondent no. 11 is concerned, during the pendency of the writ petition, respondent no. 11 has been deleted and respondent nos. 5 to 10 did not appear before this Court and now the only question of seniority between the petitioner and respondent nos. 5 to 10 is contravened.