LALAN SHINDE Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was directly recruited as a Mukhya Sevika in the then Collectorate of Goa. By an order dated 17th December, 1986 along with others, she was confirmed in the said post. She is a trained graduate, being B.Sc (Hons.) and has also undergone training as Mukhya Sevika at Udaipur, Home Science College and job training for Child Development Project Officer at Delhi. It appears that her services, along with others, came to be transferred to the Directorate of Social Welfare, and some time in the year 1977, the staff of the Child Welfare Projects run by the State Social Welfare Board were also taken over by the Government. A tentative seniority list was thereafter prepared and circulated for inviting objections. In the year 1982, Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India came to be framed , known as Recruitment Rules. It is the case of the petitioner that for appointment as Mukhya Sevika, both by direct recruitment or promotion, a Degree of a recognised University with Social Science or any equivalent subjects as a course of study was necessary. The promotion to the post of Gram Sevika was from the rank of Bal Sevika or Griha Sevika for which the minimum qualifications prescribed were S.S.C. or equivalent. Thus, it is her case that only Bal Sevika possessing graduate qualifications could be appointed as Mukhya Sevikas. Further promotion from the rank of Mukhya Sevika was to the post of Social Welfare Officer/Child Development Project Officer. Thereafter, the Recruitment Rules in the year 1986 were framed, which were in suppression of the earlier rules. Under the said rules, recruitment to the post of Social Welfare Officer/Child Development Project Officer was 75% by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. The promotion was from the rank of Mukhya Sevikas holding a Degree of a recognised University. It is the case of the petitioner that some of the respondents who are promoted as Social Welfare Officers or Child Development Project Officers are not Degree holders and not even S.S.C. On the basis of these allegations, therefore, the petitioner had challenged the Order of promotion issued by the Government of Goa vide Notification dated 27th August, 1987.

(2.) It appears from the record that the Goa Government was following a policy of making ad-hoc appointments to the promotional posts. The ad-hoc appointments made vide Order dated 10th of December, 1982, came to be challenged before this Court by the persons aggrieved. This petition came to be allowed partly. However, we are not concerned in this writ petition with the said controversy.

(3.) It is also the case of the petitioner that the Government of India had issued instructions to the State Governments that the posts of Child Development Project Officers should be manned by the persons who are possessing a Degree of a recognised University. The said directions were binding upon the State Government, since the whole project was being financed by the Central Government. Those instructions incorporated a general policy, and as a result of this ultimately, the Rules came to be amended in the year 1986. The petitioner is working as a Child Development Project Officer, though on ad-hoc basis, since 8th of December, 1982. It also appears that the respondent No. 13 Kum. Kishori Sadekar has been appointed to the post of Probation Officer. It further appears from the record that this was a direct appointment to the said post after issuing an advertisement in the newspapers. The advertisement itself stated that the post is ad-hoc and the appointment will also be on ad-hoc basis, till a regular appointment is made. Kum. Sadekar is appointed as an Probation Officer on ad-hoc basis on 24th of October, 1979, and we are informed that, till today, she continues in the said capacity as no regular appointment is made. We are also informed that, of late, the matter is referred to the Public Service Commission. It then appears from the record that on 10th of March, 1986, the Departmental Promotion Committee met to select Mukhya Sevikas for promotion on regular basis to the post of Child Development Project Officer/Social Welfare Officer. Group B Gazetted. On the basis of the recommendation made by the said Departmental Promotion Committee, the Orders came to be issued on 27th of August, 1987. Though the petitioner was senior to respondents Nos. 8 to 13, her name was excluded from the said list, and consequently, she was not promoted to the said post. It is this Order of promotion of respondents Nos. 2 to 13 which is challenged in this writ petition, on various grounds.