The right to promotion is not vested; retrospective promotions require clear rules or exceptional circumstances and are effective only from the date granted, not from the vacancy date.

(Per Nivedita P. Mehta, J.)

1. Heard Mr S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr T. Sequeira for the petitioner, Ms Maria Correia, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr Shubham Priolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.2.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of and at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. By the present petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus against the respondent no.2 to promote the petitioner to the post of Section Officer from the retrospective date when the vacancies arose on the death of one Ganpat Palni, that is, with effect from 10.12.2016, with all consequential benefits such as back wages, arrears and other retirement benefits. The petitioner has further sought direction to restrain the respondents from taking any action in furtherance of the Memorandum dated 23.08.2024 and the show cause notice dated 24.10.2024.

4. The matter was listed for hearing on 8.01.2025. This court, after hearing the parties, passed the following order:

"1. So far as prayer clauses (B) and (C) are concerned, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that with a view to resolve the issue, petitioner is willing to tender an apology.

2. Mr. Priolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate on instructions submitted that if such an apology is tendered, the same shall be accepted and memorandums dated 23.08.24 and 24.10.2024 and the show cause notice dated 24.10.2024, mentioned in prayer clauses (B), (C) and (D) will be withdrawn. However, learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to press for prayer clause (A). Prima facie, we are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, seeks some time to take instructions. However, we make it clear that in the event the Petitioner wishes to pursue the challenge to prayer clause (A), we will hear the Petitioner and decide prayer clause (A) on merits."

5. In the aforesaid background, the matter is taken up for hearing only on the ground of entitlement of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Section officer from the retrospective date when the vacancy arose, that is w.e.f. 10.12.2016 with all consequential benefits.

6. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the year 1989. Thereafter, she was promoted to the post of Assistant. The petitioner, having completed more than 3 years in the post of Junior Assistant, was eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant. There were 6 vacancies to be filled as on 1.04.2002. The Departmental Promotion Committee (herein after referred to as 'DPC') met on 02.04.2002 for filling up of the said 6 posts. In total, 12 candidates were included in the zone of consideration, wherein the petitioner was ranked at Sr. No.6. The DPC gave overall grading for the last 5 years, where the petitioner had 3 'Very Good', 1 'Good' and 1 'Average' grading. Still, the DPC excluded the name of the petitioner and recommended the name of one Smt. Farida Muzawar (ranked 9th in the zone of consideration), who had only 1 'Very Good' and 4 'Good' grading. In doing so, the DPC superseded and displaced 3 c