... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.56 OF 2002 Shri Naguesh V. Narulkar, aged 37 years, presently employed as Library Attendant, Directorate of Archives, Government of Goa, Panaji, Goa, resident of Hali, Chandel, Pernem, Goa. ... Petitioners v e r s u s 1. The Director of Archives, Government of Goa, having office at Directorate of Archives, Panaji, Goa. 2. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary, having office at Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. 3. Shri Mahesh R. Kalangutkar, presently employed at Sorter, Directorate of Archives and Archeology, Panaji, Goa. ... Respondents ... 2 ... Shri M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents no.1 and 2. Shri J. Godinho, Advocate for the respondent no.3. CORAM: S. A. BOBDE, J. R. C. CHAVAN, J. Date : 07.07.2008. ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per S. A. BOBDE , J.) The petitioner seeks promotion from the post of Group 'D' to the post of Sorter w.e.f. 7.12.2001. He also seeks the setting aside of the order dated 7.12.2001 promoting the respondent no.3 to the post of Sorter. Admittedly, the post of Sorter is a selection post. Promotion to that post can be made from Group 'D' employees of the Department with five years regular service, possessing S.S.C. With some knowledge of reading and writing Portuguese. Apart from promotion, appointment can ... 3 ... also be made by direct recruitment. We are not concerned with appointment by direct recruitment in this case. 2. The petitioner appears to have all the necessary qualifications for the promotion to the post of Sorter. Indeed he has been promoted w.e.f. 20.07.2005 to the post of Sorter. The petitioner was appointed on 18.11.1987 and is promoted as Library Attendant on 08.01.1990. Both these posts are group 'D' posts. The respondent no.3 who has been promoted to the post of Sorter when the vacancies arose in the year 2001 does not have requisite qualifications. He has been working on daily wages as a clerk cum typist. 3. Mr. Sonak, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted rightly that the respondent no.3 could not have been promoted on 07.12.2001 from the position of a person working on daily wages to the post a Sorter while purporting to regularise his services. We find that the respondent no.3 could have been promoted as a Sorter only if he was holding a regular post in Group ... 4 ... 'D' for five years. On the contrary, he was only working as a daily wagers, as the order itself shows. This is clearly impermissible since the respondent no.3 does not qualify for being promoted. 4. In the circumstances, there is no option but to strike down the promotion of the respondent no.3. The impugned order dated 7.12.2001 appointing the said respondent no.3 to the post of Sorter is set aside. The respondents are directed to hold a D.P.C. To consider the petitioner's eligibility to the post of Sorter. If the D.P.C. considers the petitioner eligible for promotion, they shall promote him with all the consequential benefits. Rule made absolute, accordingly. S. A. BOBDE, J. R. C. CHAVAN, J. lh/.