JOSEPH EMMANUEL Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who has been functioning as Principal of the Goa College of Pharmacy from 1981 onwards, has approached this Court challenging the order of the Government-Exhibit O dated 7-8-1991 by which the 3rd respondent was promoted on ad-hoc" basis to the post of Principal with immediate effect and for a period of one year or till the post is filled in on regular basis whichever event occurs earlier. In that order it was further mentioned that the petitioner would be relieved of the additional charge of the post of Principal. The order was varied by the Government itself by order dated 12-8-1991, where the word "promote" was substituted by the word "appoint". By an amendment petition, the petitioner had prayed for quashing this order as well as totally unjustified and contrary to law. The 3rd respondent has filed an affidavit in justification of the appointment and asserting his continuance as Principal after having assumed charge of that post from 8-8-1991.

(2.) THE appointment to the post of Principal was earlier governed by the rules framed in the year 1969. Regular appointment was not made inspite of the lapse of a fairly long period. It is not in controversy that the petitioner was having additional charge of the Principal from the year 1981 onwards. Attempts were made to fill in the post on a regular basis. An advertisement was made inviting applications in that behalf. The petitioner contended that the qualifications for the post referred to in the advertisement were contrary to those provided by the rules. He moved this Court and successfully too. It was ruled by this Court that the advertisement did not have the necessary support from the statutory rules. The advertisement was accordingly quashed.

(3.) THE rules were amended in the year 1988. Attempts at filling in the post on regular basis were revived. Initially, a selection made by the Government was suggested to be by passed by the Public Service Commission observing that a larger number of candidates would be preferably considered for appointment to that post. In that process, other advertisements followed. However, till 2-7-1991 there was no rectification of the attempts of the Government in selecting a person for appointment on regular basis. The last advertisement was published on 2-7-1991. 31-7-1991 was fixed as last date for submitting the applications. The 3rd respondent did respond to the advertisement. No appointment on a regular basis has been made by the Government. The impugned order of appointment, as noted earlier, is only an ad-hoc appointment and one which is to enure for a period of only one year or till a regular appointment is made.