NIKITA BADKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein started her career as a L.D.C. on 13-1-1988 in the Legislature Department, and has now been promoted as a section Officer w.e.f. 20-3-2007, after filing of the petition.

(2.) Her grievance now appears to be that respondent No. 5 could not have marched over her, in seniority by direct recruitment. As can be seen from Order dated 20-6-2008 the name of respondent No. 5 figures at serial No. 14 and that of the petitioner at serial No. 15, both being section officers in the said Department. Prior to the re-designation of the posts in the said Department, a Junior Assistant was known as a L.D.C. and a section Officer was known as a Superintendent. The petitioner's case is based on GDD Legislature Department(Non-gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1981(RR of 1981, for short) by which the posts of Superintendents/sections officers, Assistants/Senior Assistants had to be filled in by promotion, failing which by transfer, and failing both, by direct recruitment. The entire case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 5 could not have been appointed by direct recruitment. Her case is that either the petitioner ought to have been appointed by giving relaxation of qualifying service or the post ought to have been filled in by transfer on deputation.

(3.) The case of the petitioner, further is that the said Rules were amended by Notification dated 12-4-1993, and the method of filling of vacancies prescribed was by promotion failing which by transfer on deputation and failing which by direct recruitment, and the promotion had to be made from U.D.C's/ Assistants having at least five years experience in the grade, and as far as the deputation is concerned, the Rules provided that the deputation would be from a suitable official holding analogous post under the Government of Goa and the deputation period was not to exceed three years. The case of the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition was that there were four vacancies in the post of Senior Assistants and the petitioner came to know that the same were being filled in by direct recruitment which advertisement did not confirm to the said Recruitment Rules which provided the age limit for direct recruitment as 35 years but the advertisement stipulated the age not to exceed 40 years, and moreover the educational and other qualifications under the said Recruitment Rules required Konkani and/ or Marathi which requirement was dispensed with by the advertisement.