The main legal point established in the judgment is that promotions should be based on the date the DPC considered the vacancy for filling up, rather than the date the vacancy arose. The court also emphasized the need for prospective promotions based on DPC recommendations and held that the Government had strictly complied with the DPC guidelines.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner joined the Government service in February 1993 as a mamlatdar, which is a feeder category. As per the service regulations, he was eligible to the next promotional post, that is Junior Scale Officer, on his completing five years in the feeder category. And he completed his five years by 1998. That year, a Junior Scale Officer's vacancy arose under the reserved category (SC), to which the petitioner belongs. But, there was no DPC in 1998; there was one in 1999, though.

2. Nevertheless, in 1999 DPC the petitioner's name was not considered for promotion. By then, there was a vacancy, and the petitioner was eligible, too. Instead, in 2001 DPC, the petitioner's name was considered. At any rate, pending this process, on 28.02.2001 he was promoted on ad hoc basis.

3. In the above background, the petitioner represented to the Government that he should have been promoted "in the vacancy that arose in 1998". Then, the Goa Public Service Commission held a review DPC in 2012; this review relates to the DPC of 2000. In that review DPC, the authorities gave retrospective effect to the petitioner's promotion: from 17.04.2000.

4. On the petitioner's repeated representations, the Government, in 2011, partly considered the petitioner's demand and is said to have required the Goa Public Service Commission to hold a review DPC for 1999 and give effect to the petitioner's promotion with effect from 1999. As the record reveals, the Goa Public Service Commission, however, negatived the Government's recommendations and prevailed with the petitioner's retrospective promotion only from 2000.

5. Again, the petitioner represented to the State Government on 30.01.2013 that his promotion should be effective retrospectively, but that was rejected. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1089 of 2016.

6. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought these reliefs:

"(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature for mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the 1998 vacancy of Junior Scale Officer reserved for Scheduled Caste Candidate, with all consequential benefits;

(B) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the 1998 vacancy of Junior Scale Officer reserved for Scheduled Caste Candidate.

7. Eventually, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition with these directions:

"5. Upon the hearing of the learned Counsel and on perusal of the records, it cannot be disputed that the recommendation of the respondent no.2 are only to examine the suitability and prepare the select list. The respondent no.1 has to thereafter place the seniority of the concerned officials. In the present case, the post filled up is for the year 1998 and in fact the vacancy was available then and as such the petitioner was entitled to get the seniority as from the year 1998. Merely because such seniority list was prepared in the year 1998. Merely because such seniority list was prepared in the year 1999 it cannot dis-entitle the petitioner from getting such seniority as from the year 1998 when he was found eligible for such post.

6. In view of the above, the following

Order

i) The impugned recommendation of the respondent no.2 to the extent of the seniority of the petitioner from the year 1999 is quashed and set aside.

ii) The petitioner shall be given the promotion based on the seniority of the year 1998, in accordance with the law.

iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms."

8. In the light of this Court's judicial directive, the Government through its order, dated 25.11.2008, directed:

"....NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the recommendation of the Review DPC held on 12/07/2019 as conveyed by the Goa Public Service Commission vide its letter No. COM/II/11/42(1)/2018/146 dated 15/07/2019, and in partial modification of the order