JAGADISH A CACODCAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri D. J. Pangam, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Shri D. Lawande, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent nos.1,2 and 3 and Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Advocate for the intervenor.

(2.) Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service.

(3.) Upon hearing of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri D. Lawande, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents the grievance of the petitioner at this stage is that the respondent no.3 has illegally returned the requisition by the respondent nos.1 and 2 dated 24/09/2015 to conduct the DPC in respect of the concerned Department. It is the contention of Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent no.3 could not return the requisition and as such according to him, grave injustice would be caused to the petitioner. Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the intervenor submits that the name of the intervenor should also figure in the list submitted by the respondent no.1. Shri D.Lawande, learned Additional Advocate General submits that in case the requisition is sent by the State Government to the respondent no.3, the exercise of calling the DPC shall be conducted expeditiously as per the directions of this Court. Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the name of the intervenor also figured in the list submitted by the respondent no.1. Consequently, the grievance of the intervenor would not survive.