Summary
The Goa Public Service Commission introduced a separate interview qualifying cutoff after the written examination, although the recruitment rules prescribed selection by aggregate written and interview marks. The Court held that the Commission could not add that requirement contrary to the rules. It upheld the High Court’s directions, declined a belated factual objection to one candidate’s language qualification, and required the Commission to forward the list for the appointing authority’s lawful decision.
Issues
- Whether the Commission could prescribe a separate minimum interview score under rules requiring an aggregate merit list.
- Whether an unpleaded factual objection to a candidate’s essential language qualification could be raised at this stage.
- What consequential relief should be granted following the later recruitment process.
Provisions considered
- Rules 10 and 12, Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016The written-examination threshold and aggregate-merit-list requirements left no authority to add a separate interview qualifying minimum. (¶¶ 9-12, 16-19)
Held
- Rule 10 prescribed a minimum written score but no separate interview minimum. Rule 12 required the select list to follow aggregate written and interview marks, limited to the advertised vacancies. The Commission could not modify this statutory scheme by adding an interview elimination criterion. (¶ 9-15)
- The shortlisting precedents did not justify the additional threshold where only four candidates remained for interview and the governing rules required aggregate merit. Announcing the threshold before interview did not cure the conflict with those rules. (¶ 16-19)
- The objection that the third respondent lacked knowledge of Konkani raised a factual issue not specifically pleaded or shown to have been urged before the High Court, and not taken as a special-leave ground. The Court declined to permit it at this stage; it did not dispense with the essential qualification. (¶ 20)
- The subsequent recruitment did not defeat the respondents’ relief: the later appointments had been made subject to the litigation’s outcome. The Commission must forward the list as directed, with the appointing authority then deciding according to law. (¶ 21-22)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs. The Commission was directed to forward the list in accordance with the High Court’s directions within four weeks; the fourth respondent was to decide lawfully within six further weeks of receiving it.