High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Selection Process for Lower Division Clerk Posts. Selection based on merit and reservation policy upheld as valid and non-arbitrary.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 171
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Anil Damu Murgaonkar, a government servant, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, challenging the selection process for the post of Lower Division Clerk conducted by the Goa Public Service Commission. The selection was for 17 posts, and the petitioner claimed that the selection list was arbitrary and illegal, and that he was entitled to be appointed based on his merit. The respondents, including the State of Goa and the Commission, defended the selection as per rules. The court examined the facts and found that the selection was conducted in a fair manner, following the prescribed procedure and reservation policy. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish any illegality or arbitrariness in the selection process. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the selection list was upheld.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Selection Process - Lower Division Clerk - Goa Public Service Commission - The petitioner challenged the selection list for 17 posts of Lower Division Clerk on grounds of arbitrary selection and non-compliance with reservation policy. The court examined the selection process and found it to be in accordance with the rules and merit list. Held that the selection was valid and no interference was warranted under Article 226 (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the selection process for the post of Lower Division Clerk conducted by the Goa Public Service Commission was arbitrary and illegal, and whether the petitioner was entitled to be appointed based on his merit position.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ petition dismissed. Selection list upheld.

Law Points

  • Service Law
  • Selection Process
  • Reservation Policy
  • Writ Jurisdiction
  • Article 226
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (04) 186

WRIT PETITION NO. 75 OF 2002

0000-00-00

Anil Damu Murgaonkar

State of Goa, The Secretary, Goa Public Service Commission, Under Secretary (Personnel), Kum. Fatarpekar Siddi M., Joshi Upendra B., Naik Goltekar Snehal P., Acharya Prasanna A., Volvoikar Vinayak P., Kum. Prabhudessai Meghna, Kum. Sawant Darshna D., Mandrekar Prashant, Narulkar Suresh N., Pednekar Maya M., Kum. Colaso Florina Sebastiao, Ashutosh Ramchandra Apte, Parag M. Nagarcekar, Pradeep Shankar Naik

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging selection process for Lower Division Clerk posts.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of the selection list and direction for his appointment.

Filing Reason

Petitioner alleged that the selection process was arbitrary and illegal.

Issues

Whether the selection process for Lower Division Clerk posts was arbitrary and illegal? Whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment based on merit?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the selection list was arbitrary and illegal. Respondents argued that the selection was conducted as per rules and reservation policy.

Ratio Decidendi

The selection process was conducted in accordance with the rules and reservation policy, and no illegality or arbitrariness was found. The court declined to interfere under Article 226.

Judgment Excerpts

The selection was conducted in a fair manner, following the prescribed procedure and reservation policy.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Disposes Writ Petition and Contempt Petition Arising from Execution of Possession Order Under SARFAESI Act, 2002. Court Examines Repeated Obstruction to Section 14 Possession, Alternate Remedy Under Section 17, and Undertaking to No...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Acquits Son in Parricide Case Due to Lack of Credible Evidence and Failure to Prove Motive. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.