Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
Bharati Dangre, Nivedita P.Mehta
Pravin Fakira Power, S/o Fakira Powar – Appellant
Versus
State of Goa Through its Chief Secretary – Respondent
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,
Service during ad-hoc promotions counts for seniority; initial appointment must fulfill recruitment criteria to be recognized, irrespective of ad-hoc nature.
The court held that seniority must be established based on actual service dates, not retrospective adjustments, reinforcing the principles established in prior rulings regarding promotions and upgrad....
The period of continuous officiation after appointment has to be taken into account for determining seniority, and where an appointment was made by way of a stopgap arrangement, the experience on suc....
The seniority list must adhere to the rota-quota system, and ad hoc promotions cannot be counted for seniority unless conducted per established rules.
The court reaffirmed that temporary or ad-hoc promotions do not confer seniority rights, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory rules for public service appointments.
The practice of maintaining separate seniority lists for different wings in the Police Department had assumed the strength of law, and delay and laches barred the petitions.
The petitioners were entitled to the benefit of FR 22-B, and the respondent authorities were directed to re-fix the scale of pay of the petitioners by giving them the benefit of FR 22-B.
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
