PUBLIC GRIEVANCE FORUM Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner/public Trust challenges Notifications dated 5th May, 1999 and 15th July, 1999, issued by the Government of Goa in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Clause 3 of Article 320 of the Constitution of India so as to amend the Goa Public Service Commission (Exemption from Consultation) Regulations, 1988. By these Notifications the Government of Goa has removed the requirement of consultation with the Goa Public Service Commission in regard to specified matters of specific classes of employees.

(2.) IN brief, the Petitioners case is that Article 320 of the Constitution of India makes the consultation with the State Public Service Commission mandatory in the matters specified therein. The matters in regard to when consultation is contemplated are matters relating to the recruitment of Civil Service and the principle to be followed in making appointment to Civil Services and disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of India or the Government of State and other matters in which it is obligatory to consult the Public Service Commission. According to the Petitioners the Respondent-Government of Goa has acted arbitrarily in exercise of its powers under the proviso to Clause 3 of Article 320 in specifying the matters in which, generally or in any particular class of case or circumstances, it may not be necessary for the Public Service Commission to be consulted. The Petitioners have challenged, in particular the Notifications aforesaid. Before the issue of these Notifications, the Government of Goa had in exercise of its powers under Sub Proviso of Clause 3 excluded the requirements of consulting the Commission in regard to any of the matters mentioned in Sub-Clause (a) and (b) of Clause 3 of Article 320 of the Constitution in relation to the posts specified in the schedule to the Regulations. The post specified inter alia included all classes Group 'c' and Group 'd' services and posts. By the impugned Notifications, the Government brought Group 'c' within the purview of the Commission by providing that consultation shall not be necessary only to relation to the posts Group 'd'. By a subsequent Notification, also impugned dated 15th July, 1999, again, both Group 'c' and Group 'd' posts were excluded from the purview of the Commission. As a result, it is not necessary for the Government to consult the Commission in regard to matters specified in Sub-Clause (a) and (b) of Clause 3 of Article 320 of the Constitution in relation to both Group 'c' and Group 'd' posts.

(3.) WE have indicated the broad challenge in order to consider the objection as to the tenability of the Petition at the instance of the Petitioners. The Respondent has challenged the tenability of the Petition by the Petitioners as a Public Interest Litigation.