ISHWAR V PARAB Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the petitioners are working as Lower Division Clerks (LDC) in the office of the Inspector General of Police, State of Goa (respondent No. 2 ). The petitioner No. 1 is holding the said post since 30-12-87 and in the seniority list he was placed at Sr. No. 16. The petitioner No. 2 is holding the said post since 1-7-86 and in the seniority list she was placed at Sr. No. 15. As per the Recruitment Rules, the next promotional post for LDC is Upper Division Clerk (UDC) and the same is required to be filled up by promotion on selection basis. The Office Memorandum dated 26-9-90 prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for effecting promotion for selection post. Paragraph 6. 3. 1 of the said Memorandum provides as follows:

(2.) ON 22-9-95, the Government of Goa, (respondent No. 1) granted sanction for creation of 14 posts of UDC in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. Consequently, respondent No. 2 by his Order dated 24-10-85 made certain promotions to the post of UDC. Although there were 14 posts, only 11 persons in the seniority list came to be promoted and the remaining three posts were kept vacant. According to the petitioners, this was an arbitrary and unjustifiable act on the part of the respondent No. 1 and 2 and there was absolutely no justification for delay in filling up the remaining three, posts. According to the petitioners as per paragraph 6. 1. 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 26-9-90 they clearly fell within the zone of consideration for being promoted to the post of UDC. The said paragraph inter alia requires that when the number of vacancies is four or more then the number of candidates to be considered for the promotion is three times of the number of vacancies. In paragraph 10 of the petition, the petitioners have expressed their apprehension that they were not so considered although they fell within the zone of consideration. Hence according to them there is infringement of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE petitioners have further averred that on 14-12-95 the respondent No. 2 issued an Office Memorandum where by paragraph 6. 3. 1 in the earlier Office Memorandum dated 14-12-95 provides as under :