Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajendra A. Haldankar, an Assistant Divisional Officer in the Directorate of Fire and Emergency Services, Goa, filed a writ petition challenging the selection of respondent no. 5, Nitin V. Raikar, to the post of Deputy Director (Fire Services). The Goa Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 14.6.2013 for the post, and both the petitioner and respondent no. 5 applied. The petitioner's service conditions were governed by the Goa General Services, Directorate of Fire and Emergency Services, Group 'A' Gazetted Post Recruitment Rules, 2006. On 18.12.2013, the Selection Committee held interviews. The petitioner was not selected, and respondent no. 5 was selected. The petitioner contended that his candidature was wrongly rejected because he did not produce an experience certificate, whereas the recruitment rules did not require such a certificate at the time of interview. The court examined the recruitment rules and found that the requirement of an experience certificate was not a precondition for eligibility but a qualification to be assessed. The selection committee had no power to add additional qualifications. The court held that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to produce the certificate. Consequently, the court quashed the selection of respondent no. 5 and directed the respondents to reconsider the selection afresh, giving the petitioner an opportunity to produce the experience certificate. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Selection Process - Goa General Services, Directorate of Fire and Emergency Services, Group 'A' Gazetted Post Recruitment Rules, 2006 - The petitioner challenged the selection of respondent no. 5 on the ground that the selection committee wrongly rejected his candidature for not producing an experience certificate, whereas the rules did not require such a certificate at the time of interview. The court held that the selection committee cannot impose additional qualifications beyond the recruitment rules and that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to produce the certificate. The selection of respondent no. 5 was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the selection of respondent no. 5 to the post of Deputy Director (Fire Services) was valid and whether the petitioner's candidature was wrongly rejected for not producing an experience certificate as per the recruitment rules.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The selection of respondent no. 5 is quashed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the selection afresh, giving the petitioner an opportunity to produce the experience certificate. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Recruitment rules must be strictly construed
- Selection committee cannot add qualifications beyond rules
- Experience certificate requirement must be as per rules
- Natural justice requires opportunity to produce documents
