1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. M.C.A No. 995 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 438 of 2009 and M .C.A. NO. 1010 of 2009 IN M.C.A. NO.996 OF 2009 M.C.A. No.995 of 2009 The Under Secretary (Personnel-I) .. Applicant v/s. The State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and 8 ors. .. Respondents Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. Gauri Bhonsule, Additional Government Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the original petitioner. M.C.A. No.1010 of 2009 S. Lakshmanan .. Applicant v/s. Under Secretary (Personnel-1) Govt. of Goa and 18 ors. .. Respondents. Mr. Amey Kakodkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Kantak, advocate General with Ms. Gauri Bhonsle, Additional Government Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. DATE : 16th December, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Learned Advocate General, Shri Menezes on behalf of 2 the petitioner and Shri Kakodkar on behalf of the intervenor. 2. This is an application for approval to grant extension of service to Shri Bhangui, Superintending Engineer of the Electricity Department whose third extension expired on 30.11.2009. We are informed that his charge has been handed over to another Superintending Engineer by name Shri Talegao who is also re-employed on contract basis. 3. Learned Advocate General informs that there are four Superintending Engineers and charge of two has been held by the Chief Electrical Engineer and the other two namely Shri Bhangui and Shri Talegao have been either on extension or on contract basis. 4. The appointment to the post of Superintending Engineer is by promotion, failing which by transfer on deputation. Learned Advocate General has submitted that there are no eligible candidates to be promoted to the said post. He also submitted that the person to be promoted as Superintending Engineer requires five years of service. It is submitted that there is no person with five years experience and the only option which now remains is to get persons on deputation. On behalf of 3 the petitioner as well as the intervenor, it is pointed out that the intervenor Shri Lakshmanan was promoted on ad-hoc basis on 29.7.05 although he could have been promoted much earlier on 15.7.04. It is also submitted that the said Shri Lakshmanan who is working as Executive Engineer on adhoc basis from 29.7.2005 could be considered for promotion, considering that he has completed the tenure of about four and half years. It is also submitted that in the past, persons were promoted by giving relaxation who were short of one year, four months. It is also submitted that the said Shri Lakshmanan is doing the same work as any other person would do if promoted to the said post. It is further submitted that there is no question of extension being given to Shri Bhangui because he ceased to be in service from 30.11.2009. To this, Shri Kantak has submitted that his service could be extended retrospectively and the period of absence could be treated as leave. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that since he has ceased to be in service, his further appointment could be only by way of re- employment in the nature of direct recruitment which would require advertisement to be published and consultation with GPSC. 4 5. It is quite possible that no suitable candidates are available in the Department because the persons who were due for promotions were not promoted in time. It is certainly a very sorry state of affairs, that out of four Superintending Engineers, charge of two is held by Chief Electrical Engineer himself and the other two have been on extension or contract appointment and this for a considerable period of time. Prima facie, we are of the view that Shri S. Lakshmanan is not eligible for promotion for his promotion is on adhoc basis, and that too, only from 29.7.2005. The only other mode, next to promotion, by which the vacancies can be filled in is by deputation and in this regard Shri Kantak, Learned Advocate General submits that the Government will ensure that within a period of one month applications will be called to fill in the vacancies by transfer on deputation. We accept the said statement. 6. Learned Counsel on behalf of petitioners points out that the Department ought to have ensured that persons were brought on deputation during the last three years or so. It may be so. To that, Learned Advocate General submits that an effort was made by issuing an advertisement on 17.1.2008 to fill up two posts by transfer on deputation 5 but there was no proper response. 7. Considering the above fact situation, we are of the view that extension to Shri Bhangui needs to be given but only for a period of five months. During this period the Department should ensure that the vacancies are filled by relaxation, if possible, and if not by transfer on deputation. We make it clear that no approval for further extension would be granted. It is also hoped that the Department will fill in all other vacancies with due urgency, wherever they are required to be filled in, so that in future they are not placed in such a predicament, a predicament in which charge of two Superintending Engineers is held by the Chief Electrical Engineer and other two are either on extension or on contract basis because there are no eligible candidates to be promoted. This does not at all reflect the concern of the Government for the cadre. This is certainly not in the interest of either employees of the Department nor in public interest. 8. We expect the Government/Department to take due note of the above observations and act accordingly. M.C.A. 1010 of 2009 and 995 6 of 2009 are disposed off on the above terms. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. oc.