Disposed

Ms. Lourdes Gomes v. State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2012WP/695/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner an Assistant Bio-Chemist challenged recruitment rules causing anomaly where her qualifications entitled her for higher Chief Bio-Chemist post but not intermediate Bio-Chemist post. Bench directed respondents to consider case with representation

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's case as representation, afford hearing, and decide representation expeditiously

Ms. Lourdes Gomes Vs State of Goa through the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp695-12

¶2

vai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.695 OF 2012

¶5

Ms. Mr. Lourdes Gomes ….Petitioner V/s. State of Goa, through the Chief Secretary & 2 Ors. ….Respondent

¶6

Mr.Vijay A. Palekar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr.A.N.S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Mr.Pankaj Venekar, A.G.A. for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR AND

¶9

U.V. BAKRE, JJ. DATE : 04TH OCTOBER, 2012.

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

The petitioner is an employee of the respondents, presently working as an Assistant Bio-Chemist. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Under Secretary (Health-II) and the Directorate of Health Services respectively.

¶12

The petitioner has sought an order holding that the recruitment rules insofar as it qualifies the petitioner for promotion to the post of the Chief Bio-Chemist but not to the lower post of BioChemist is ultra-vires the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also sought an order directing the respondents to regularize and/or amend

¶13

1/4

¶14

wp695-12

¶15

the recruitment rules as are applicable to the post of Bio-Chemist for the employees who are already in service as Assistant Bio-Chemists 2000 with retrospective effect i.e. from September, 2008 that being the date from which the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of BioChemist.

¶16

Although we are not inclined to grant the reliefs as prayed for in this writ petition, prima-facie we sympathize with the petitioner in view of the peculiar predicament she finds herself in as a consequence of the rules.

¶17

The petitioner finds herself in this situation. She has a B.Sc. with Chemistry, Zoology and Marine Science and an M.Sc. with Micro-biology. She is therefore, eligible for the post in which she is in today viz. Assistant Bio-Chemist. Her qualifications do not entitle her to be promoted to the post of Bio-Chemist, as for this post the prescribed necessary qualification is M.Sc. in Bio-Chemistry (not Micro-biology) as a principle subject of the recognized university. The peculiar situation is that although the petitioner, is therefore not entitled for promotion to the post of Bio-Chemist, she has the requisite qualifications for the next higher post of Chief Bio-Chemist the prescribed necessary qualifications for which is M.Sc. in BioChemistry / Micro-biology. Thus as the petitioner possesses an M.Sc. in Micro-biology, she is entitled for the promotion to the post of Chief

¶18

2/4

¶19

wp695-12

¶20

Bio-Chemist but not to the post of Bio-Chemist. She of-course, cannot be promoted to the post of Chief Bio-Chemist till she first holds the post of Bio-Chemist.

¶21

Prima-facie, there appears to be an anomaly in the rules. We however, refrain from expressing any conclusive view on this aspect for questions of equivalence and anomalies at least in the first instance ought to be decided by the appropriate authorities who are experts in the field.

¶22

The petitioner's approach to this matter has been most responsible and fair. She showed her willingness to approach the authorities to convince them regarding her grievance. The same was reciprocated on behalf of the respondents by the learned Advocate General, who stated that the respondents will certainly look into the matter and issue suitable directions / amendments to the rules, if they find the petitioner's grievance well founded.

¶23

In the circumstances, it is not necessary for us to express any views on the petitioner's case at this stage and in this petition. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by the following order :-

¶24

i). The respondents are requested to consider the petitioner's case including as regards the anomaly as set out in the petition. The petition shall be considered to be the petitioner's representation to the

¶25

3/4

¶26

wp695-12

¶27

respondents. The petitioner shall be entitled to file a further representation and documents. The respondents shall afford the petitioner a hearing before deciding the representation.

¶28

ii). Considering the facts of this case, we are sure that the respondents would decide the representation as expeditiously as possible, even without a request in that regard from the Court.

¶29

(U.V. BAKRE J.) (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.)

¶30

4/4

Ms. Lourdes Gomes v. State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Lourdes Gomes v. State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs M/S Edc Ltd, through Its Managing Director

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs M/S Edc Ltd, through Its Managing Director

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs M/S Edc Ltd, through Its Managing Director

Goa Foundation, through Its Secretary Dr. Claude Alvares, Vs Goa State Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Shri. Gangaram Balchandra Bandodkar Vs the Chief Town Planner Town and Country Planning Department and 5 Ors.

Mr. Timoteo Luis Colaco and 4 Ors., Vs the Director of Education, Govt. of Goa, and 2 Ors.