1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 109 OF 2008 Smt. Jyoti R. Nageshkar, resident of House No. 113, Nageshi, Bandora, Ponda, Goa. .... Petitioner V/s 1. The State of Goa, through the Chief Secretary, having Office at Secretariat, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. 2. The Principal Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Goa, having office at Altinho, Panaji, Goa. .... Respondents Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. R. Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. W. Coutinho, Govt. Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & N.A. BRITTO, JJ. DATE : 22nd APRIL, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard by consent. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner seeks an appointment to the post of L.D.C., which has been withheld inspite of the petitioner having been duly selected for the said post. 3. The petitioner, in pursuance of the advertisement, had applied and was offered a post of L.D.C. on the regular establishment of Public Works 2 Department on a pay scale of Rs. 3050/- per month. The memorandum by which her appointment was communicated stated that the appointment was subject to the medical fitness certification by the Competent Authority. The petitioner was examined by the Goa Medical College, which issued a medical fitness certificate dated 27/04/2007, stating that the petitioner had no disease (communicable or otherwise any constitutional weakness or bodily informity, which would disqualify the candidate of such an employment). Since the petitioner was pregnant at that time, the remark to the following effect was made: “Fitness pending delivery” 4. Though this fitness certificate was issued on 27/04/2007, no appointment order was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner delivered a child on 21/05/2007, and again underwent another medical fitness test and the Goa Medical College had issued another medical certificate dated 13/07/2007, certifying that the petitioner was not suffering from any disease and was completely fit. It appears that the petitioner even made representation dated 12/10/2007 which also went unheeded. 5. Inspite of the above, the petitioner has been denied appointment and has to approach this Court in the exercise of an extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the respondents, we find no justification whatsoever why the petitioner should have been denied appointment letter and made to wait and ultimately driven to approach the Court of law for redress. To say the least, the case shows a great apathy of the respondents towards candidates seeking appointment. It would have been a different matter if the respondents bona fide found that there were some defects in the petitioner's selection and/or therefore had withheld an appointment letter for some justifiable reasons. Nothing of the kind is forthcoming in this case. 7. In view of the circumstances of the case and the extreme apathy and negligence on the part of the respondents, we consider it appropriate to make Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause 'A' with exemplary costs quantified at Rs. 25,000/- payable by the respondent no.1, who shall be entitled to recover the same appropriately from those found responsible. Appointment order shall be issued forthwith. S.A. BOBDE, J. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-