Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by two Legal Assistants working in the Law Department of the Government of Goa, who sought a review of the departmental promotion committee (DPC) processes of 2018 and 2019 for the post of Superintendent (Legal/Drafting). The Petitioners, originally appointed in the Electricity Department as Legal Assistants in 2007, were transferred to the General Administration Department in June 2010 and posted in the Law Department. Although they performed similar duties, they received a lower pay scale than directly recruited Legal Assistants. In 2015, they filed Writ Petition No. 809 of 2015 seeking pay parity. The High Court, by judgment dated 12 July 2022, directed that they be placed in the equivalent pay scale. Subsequently, the Government, with the approval of the Council of Ministers, issued an order on 12 April 2023 absorbing them into the Secretariat cadre of Legal Assistants with retrospective effect from the dates they joined the General Administration Department in June 2010, with all consequential benefits. The Petitioners contended that this retrospective absorption rendered their earlier exclusion from promotion for the years 2017 and 2019 unjustified. In 2018, a DPC was held to fill vacancies that had arisen in 2017, but the Petitioners were not considered because they were not part of the Secretariat cadre and their pay scale dispute was pending. Two other Legal Assistants were promoted. Another vacancy arose in 2019 but no DPC was held until 2025. In February 2025, a DPC considered the Petitioners for four vacancies (one of 2017, one of 2019, and two of 2022). The DPC found them fit and recommended their promotion on a regular basis with immediate effect, which was granted prospectively. The Petitioners argued that the 2018 and 2019 exercises should be reviewed so that their promotion dates could be antedated, enabling them to complete five years' regular service as Superintendent for further promotion to Under Secretary. The recruitment rules for Under Secretary prescribed promotion from Superintendent (Legal/Drafting) with five years' regular service in that grade. The Goa Public Service Commission had advertised posts for deputation and direct recruitment as no Superintendent had completed five years’ regular service. The Petitioners sought a direction to count their regular service from the date they would have been promoted had they been considered in 2018 or 2019. The Respondents opposed the petition on grounds of delay, non-joinder of the officers promoted in 2018, and the proposition that eligibility could not be conferred retrospectively. They argued that promotion normally takes effect from the date of actual promotion and that the requirement of five years' regular service meant actual experience in the promotional post. The court framed four issues: whether the petition was barred by delay and non-joinder; whether the Petitioners’ eligibility dated from the absorption order of 2023 or from the recognised date of June 2010; whether the circumstances required a review of the 2018 and 2019 promotional exercises and what service consequences could follow; and whether notional regular service, if granted, could be counted for promotion to Under Secretary. The judgment text available is incomplete; after stating the settled principle that there is no fundamental right to promotion but a right to fair consideration, the opinion ends. Therefore, the final decision and operative directions are not mentioned in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Delay and Laches - The court considered whether the petition was barred by delay and non-joinder, noting that the Petitioners challenged the 2018 DPC only after the absorption order of 2023 and that the two officers promoted in 2018 were not made parties; the court observed that the relief sought might be moulded and the question of delay could be linked to the continuing grievance from the retrospective recognition of cadre status. (Paras 14, 18-I) B) Service Law - Absorption - Retrospective Effect - The court examined whether the Government order dated 12 April 2023, which absorbed the Petitioners into the Secretariat cadre with effect from June 2010 with all consequential benefits, conferred eligibility for promotion from that date rather than from 2023; the Petitioners argued that the earlier exclusion was based on a status now retrospectively corrected, while the State contended that eligibility could not be backdated. (Paras 11-12, 18-II) C) Service Law - DPC Review - Pre-existing Eligibility - The court considered the applicability of DPC guidelines paragraphs 18.1 and 18.2 to review the 2018 and 2019 promotional exercises, where the Petitioners were excluded solely because they were not then in the Secretariat cadre and their pay dispute was sub judice; the Petitioners relied upon the absorption order to claim that they should have been considered in those DPCs, and the State argued that review was impermissible because the Petitioners were not eligible on the date of the original DPC. (Paras 11-13, 15-16, 18-III) D) Service Law - Regular Service - Notional Promotion - The court framed the issue whether notional regular service, if granted through a corrective promotional process, could satisfy the requirement of five years' regular service as Superintendent for promotion to Under Secretary under the Recruitment Rules; the Petitioners invoked precedents to distinguish between notional and actual service, while the State stressed that the higher post required actual experience. (Paras 13, 16, 18-IV)
Issue of Consideration
I) Whether the Petition is defeated by delay or non-joinder. II) Whether the Petitioners acquired eligibility only in 2023 or whether the order of absorption recognised their pre-existing eligibility from June 2010. III) Whether the circumstances warrant a review of the 2018 and 2019 promotional exercises and, if so, what service consequences may lawfully follow. IV) Whether notional regular service, if granted through such corrective process, can be counted towards the five years' regular service prescribed for promotion as Under Secretary.
Law Points
- Absorption order with retrospective effect may confer eligibility from past date
- No fundamental right to promotion but right to fair consideration
- DPC guidelines paragraph 18.1 and 18.2 govern review of earlier exercises
- Regular service is not synonymous with actual physical service and is contrasted with ad hoc or stopgap service
- Delay and laches do not apply when grievance is continuing
- Non-joinder of necessary parties is not fatal if relief can be moulded
- The meaning of regular service in Recruitment Rules must be interpreted contextually
- An employee found suitable cannot suffer due to administrative failure to hold DPC in time
