YESHWANT CHANDRAKANT SHETGAONKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Department of Personnel, Government of Goa, had sent a requisition to the Secretary, Goa Public Service Commission (GPSC), vide letter dtd. 29/8/2012, seeking recommendation for filling up the post of Junior Scale Officer. The process of selection that followed resulted in the petitioner being successful in the written examination; however, certain technical glitches were noticed which had the effect of vitiating the result of the written examination. As such, the Government of Goa decided not to proceed further with the selection process. The requisition sent earlier on 29/8/2012 stood withdrawn by a letter dtd. 10/11/2014 of the Under Secretary (Personnel-1), Department of Personnel, Government of Goa. Consequent upon such withdrawal of requisition dtd. 29/8/2012, the Department of Personnel through the self-same incumbent Under Secretary (Personnel-1), had forwarded a further requisition dtd. 13/3/2015 to the Secretary, GPSC for filling up 22 posts of Junior Scale Officers of Goa Civil Services. In pursuance of such a requisition, the GPSC conducted a further examination in which the petitioner duly participated without raising any demur and was ultimately declared not successful. It was after the petitioner's unsuccessful attempt in the second round of selection process, which was initiated pursuant to the requisition dtd. 13/3/2015, that the petitioner instituted a writ petition (WP No. 866 of 2015) challenging the cancellation of the first round of selection process. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the writ petition by its order dtd. 27/1/2017, categorically observed that since the petitioner had participated in the second round of selection process without challenging cancellation of the first round of selection process, the writ petition did not call for any relief being granted to the petitioner. However, an observation was made that there were certain advices contained in the second paragraph of the letter of withdrawal dtd. 10/11/2014 and if such advices had not been followed, all contentions were being left open. In view of such observations of the co-ordinate Bench, the petitioner instituted this writ petition seeking, inter alia, the following relief :

(2.) We have heard Mr. Zaveri, learned advocate appearing in support of the writ petition.

(3.) Insofar as prayer (C) is concerned, we are of the clear opinion that the same is hit by the principles of res judicata, having regard to the order dtd. 27/1/2017 of the co-ordinate Bench referred to above. While considering prayers (A) and (B), we had called upon Mr. Zaveri to demonstrate before us contravention of any binding rule by the GPSC while it embarked upon the second round of selection process, or any illegality or patent material irregularity vitiating the selection process.