Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 1220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
Bharati Dangre, Nivedita P. Mehta, JJ.
Mr. Pravin Fakira Power, S/o Fakira Powar and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Goa Through its Chief Secretary and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petitions No.638, 646 and 647 of 2023
Decided On : 22-07-2025
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Service Employment
Act Referred
Goa Police Service Rules : R.16
Headnote
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, after undergoing the selection process, were promoted on an ad-hoc basis due to vacancies and pending court cases. Their placements were later contested as unfair against the final seniority list published.
Findings of Court:
Promotion to be counted from the date of original ad-hoc appointments, and current seniority list to be revised accordingly.
Issues: Validity of seniority based on ad-hoc promotions and the implications of the pending litigation on their promotions.
Ratio Decidendi: If qualifications and recruitment processes are satisfied, seniority should count from the initial promotion, dismissing the notion that ad-hoc promotion negates this count.
Result: Petitioners' placements in the seniority list ordered to be rectified to reflect their actual promotion dates.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Nitin Sardessai, Senior Advocate with Mr Galileo Teles, Mr Siddharth Sardessai and Ms R. Ballari, Advocates, Mr Carlos A. Ferreira, Senior Advocate with Mr Dhaval D. Zaveri and Mr Sujay Kamulkar, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr Prashil Arolkar, Additional Government Advocate , Mr Deep D. Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate, Mr Agnelo F. Diniz, Senior Advocate with Mr Parikshit Sawant, Advocate , Mr Abhijit Gosavi and Mr Gaurang Kerkar, Advocates , Mr Pavithran A.V., Advocate with Mr Prasad Kholkar, Advocate , Mr Shirin Naik, Advocate, Mr Varun Bhandankar, Advocate with Ms Maria Carmel Cota Viegas, Advocate , Mr Bhargav Samant, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to seniority list of police inspectors (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. promotions on ad-hoc basis amidst pending litigation (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. petitioners' arguments on ad-hoc promotions (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. respondents' counterarguments on eligibility (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. government's position and legal framework (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. historical context of recruitment and changes (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. guidelines of departmental promotion committee (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. candidature for promotion considered by peb (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. eligibility and procedure for promotion (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 10. discretion of dpc in assessment (Para 32 , 33) |
| 11. revising seniority lists process according to merit (Para 34 , 35) |
| 12. principles governing ad-hoc appointments (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 13. entitlement to seniority based on qualifications (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
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
