Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA BENCH
BHARATI DANGRE, NIVEDITA P.MEHTA
Anita Yuvraj Naik – Appellant
Versus
State of Goa, Through its Chief Secretary – Respondent
(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 s
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.
Promotions take effect from the date granted, not from the date of vacancy, and retrospective seniority cannot be assigned.
The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, but there is no absolute right to promotion itself, which becomes effective only upon assumption of duties.
The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and denial of timely consideration constitutes a violation of these rights.
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 e....
(1) Promotion – Promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when vacancy occurs on subject post or when the post itself is created – There is no fundamental right to prom....
An employee has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion, but not a right to retrospective promotion unless clearly justified by rules or exceptional circumstances.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
