SHAILESH KOTHAWALE Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Supekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Dangui, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Mr. Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 3, 4 and 5.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs :

(3.) Respondent no. 2 issued an advertisement dated 22/02/2007 inviting applications for the posts of Excise Inspector, whereby, inter alia, the educational qualification prescribed was degree of a recognized University either in Science, Arts or Commerce. There were altogether 16 posts: one reserved for ST Category; three for OBC category and remaining twelve for General Category. The petitioner, belonging to OBC Category, possessed all the requirements, mentioned in the said advertisement and thus he applied for the said post. On 07/03/2007, a list of candidates was displayed on the notice board of respondent no. 2 and they were given respective roll numbers for the purpose of written test. Accordingly, written test was conducted on 11/03/2007. The respondent no. 2 did not short list any of the candidates who had answered the written test and all were invited for oral interview which was conducted from 15/03/2007 to 23/03/2007. There were almost 1000 candidates who were interviewed within a period of one week by respondent no. 2. Somewhere in the end of March, 2007 the respondent no. 2 displayed the select list of the candidates wherein the name of the petitioner did not figure whereas the names of respondents no. 3 to 5 were shown amongst the selected candidates against the OBC Category.