Service during ad-hoc promotions counts for seniority; initial appointment must fulfill recruitment criteria to be recognized, irrespective of ad-hoc nature.

JUDGMENT :

Bharati Dangre, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

The aforesaid ten Petitioners In WP/638/2023(F), WP/646/2023 and WP/647/2023 raise a challenge to the Memorandum dated 23.03.2023 issued by the Superintendent of Police (HQ.), Panaji, Goa, thereby finalising the Seniority List of Police Inspectors of Police Department, Government of Goa, on consideration of the objections received pursuant to the declaration of tentative Seniority List of Police Inspectors and Indian Reserve Battalion (IRBn), to be considered for promotion, published on 15.03.2023.

The Petitioners before us are the Police Sub-Inspectors who, on undergoing the recruitment process of selection found placement in the Selection List displayed on 16.04.2002.

The List comprising of the Petitioners, was subjected to challenge by three unsuccessful candidates namely, Tanveer Khatib, Shankar Kamat, Victor Lobo, who though participated in the selection list did not find themselves in the Select List and through three distinct Writ Petitions bearing No.138, 172 and 180 of 2002, they raised a challenge to the Select List. The thrust of the challenge, in all the Petitions, inter alia, was that after commencement of the selection process, new criteria was introduced which prejudicially affected them and resulted in their non-selection.

On 04.06.2002, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to grant stay to the Select List and restrained the Respondents from issuing appointment letters to the selected candidates.

While admitting the Writ Petitions, on 04.06.2002, this Court directed that the appointments made, if any, to the post of Police Sub­ Inspector would be subject to the result of the petitions.

This resulted in conditional appointment orders being issued to 31 candidates on 14.06.2002, appointing them on the post of Police Sub Inspectors against the existing vacancies on the pay of Rs.5500/­ per month in the scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/- plus other usual allowances with effect from the date when they report for basic training at the Police School, Valpoi. The appointment order, by way of condition no.3 stipulated that their seniority will be fixed in accordance with the existing rules and their appointment shall be on probation of two years.

2. On 12.03.2024, this Court pronounced its judgment in the three Petitions raising a challenge to the Select List dated 16.04.2002 and held that by introduction of the career profile, the Respondent no.1 and 2 have committed an illegality as they permitted some candidates to gain undue advantage over the Petitioners before the Court, in the matter of selection and as a result, the selection of Respondent No.3 to 33 was set aside. Resultantly, the selection of the 31 candidates, who were issued appointment to the post of Police Sub­ Inspector pursuant to the publication of Selection List, was set aside and this included the Petitioners, who filed Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court.

3. During the pendency of the Petition, since the Petitioners were already issued orders of appointment to the post