IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 712 OF 2008 MRS. TEJA M. S. JUWARKAR ... Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR CALANGUTE AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. D. J. Pangam, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Addl. Govt. Advocate for Respondents No. 1 to 3. Coram:- A. P. DESHPANDE & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 2nd December, 2008 P.C.: The petitioner questions legality and propriety of an action on behalf of respondent no.1 in promoting respondent no.4 to the posts of Senior Stenographer. The posts of Senior Stenographer came into existence on upgradation of a posts of Junior Stenographer by an order dated 16/10/2007. The petitioner has been working in the posts of Junior Stenographer w.e.f. 30/11/2001 whereas the respondent no.4 has been working as Junior Stenographer w.e.f. 20/09/1989. With a view to assess the comparative merit of the two candidates i.e. the petitioner and respondent no.4, the DPC had perused the ACR's for preceding 5 years i.e. from the year 2002-03 to 2006-07. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that preceding 5 years ought to have been from the year 2001-02 up to 2005-06. Hardly, anything turns on this for the reason that perusal of the ACR's of the year earlier as well, of year 2001-02 show that both the candidates had the grading 'excellent'. 2. We have perused the proceedings of the DPC wherein the DPC has assessed both the candidates by grading them in the category of excellent in so far as ACR's are concerned and finally DPC has recommended respondent no.4 for promotion to the posts of Senior Stenographer. The grievance of the petitioner is that her claim has not been considered in the proper perspective and she is having comparative better merit vis-a-vis respondent no.4. 3. We have perused ACR's of both the candidates, so also proceedings of DPC. Even in the opinion of DPC both the candidates were found to be similarly situated inasmuch as both were assessed as excellent. Having found that respondent no.4 is working as Junior Stenographer since 1989 as compared to the petitioner who is working in the said posts from 2001, the DPC recommended respondent no.4 to the posts of Senior Stenographer. We do not find any illegality or impropriety in the decision reached by respondent nos. 1 to 3 in promoting respondent no.4. No case is made out which calls for interference. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. A. P. DESHPANDE, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH