TANVEER KHATIB Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three petitions challenge the select list dated 16. 4. 2002 for the post of Police Sub-Inspector of the Police Department of the Government of Goa. The challenge arises mainly on the ground that after the commencement of the selection process, new criteria were introduced as a result of which, the petitioners have been prejudicially affected and as a result have not been selected.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are as follows : on 6. 2. 2001, an advertisement appeared in the news papers inviting applications to the post of Police Sub-Inspector in the Police Department of the Government of Goa. The qualifications prescribed in the advertisement were as follows : (I) Degree of a recognized University or equivalent. (II) Age 20 to 25 years as on 31. 01. 2001 (III) Physical requirements : (IV) Should pass written and oral examination conducted by the Department. (V) Knowledge of Konkani, desirable knowledge of Marathi. Twenty six posts were to be filled by male candidates and five by female candidates. The number of reserved posts was also advertised. Since the petitioners possessed the required qualifications as sought in the advertisement, the petitioners applied for the posts within the specified times i. e. on or before 26th February, 2001. In December, 2001, the petitioners received a letter from the Superintendent of Police, Head Quarters, Panaji stating that preliminary selection tests for the post of Police Sub-Inspector were fixed on 12. 12. 2001. The petitioners were directed to appear for the preliminary tests along with their original certificates. The petitioners successfully completed and passed the preliminary selection tests. On 25. 1. 2002, the petitioners were informed that the written examination for the posts was to be held on 10. 2. 2002. The syllabus for the written examination was also forwarded to the petitioners. On 7. 3. 2002, the petitioners were directed to produce original as well as certified copies of certain documents, which included the various certificates showing that the petitioners had completed their Graduation and achieved excellence in extra- curricular activities and other fields of study. Accordingly, all the petitioners produced these certificates. The petitioners were informed on 18. 3. 2002 when they produced these certificates that additional marks were proposed to be allotted to certain heads under caption "career Profile". On 3. 4. 2002, the petitioners attended the oral interview. On 16. 4. 2002, a list of selected candidates was displayed on the notice board. However, the petitioners were not found to be successful. Being aggrieved by the omission of their names from the list of successful candidates, the petitioners have filed the present petition. According to the petitioners, they learnt for the first time through a press statement issued on behalf of the Police Department on 12. 12. 2001 that 35 marks would be allotted for written tests for recruitment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector, 15 marks for oral interview and 50 marks for what was described as "career Profile". The press statement, however, did not specify as to what comprised the career profile. According to the petitioners, the entire selection process was vitiated as the persons were selected to the post of Police Sub-Inspector de hors the Recruitment Rules. The petitioners have, in their petitions, submitted that despite specific criteria being stipulated in the Recruitment Rules, which all the petitioners satisfied, the respondents No. 1 and 2 i. e. the State of Goa and the Director General of Police had added to this criteria after the selection process had commenced.

(3.) AFTER filing of these petitions, an affidavit of A. K. Singh, Superintendent of Police was filed in Writ Petition No. 138/2002. According to the affidavit, the selection process adopted was within the format of the Recruitment Rules. It was disclosed in the affidavit that the Government on 10/12/2001 had evolved a mode of evaluation of the merits of the candidates, splitting the assessment into two rounds. In round one, only the eligible candidates who possessed the essential qualifications would be called for a physical test which would carry no marks, but an incumbent would have to be qualified to be considered in the second round for evaluation on merit. This assessment was based on 50 marks allotted for career profile, 35 marks allotted for written examination and 15 marks allotted for oral examination. The total marks being 100. The break-up of marks allotted for each head was as follows : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_532_TLMHH0_2004Html1.htm</FRM>