1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.142/2003 Mr. Francisco A.S. M. e Sa, Married, Govt. Employee r/o. Bastora, Bardez, Goa .......... Petitioner. Versus. 1. State of Goa, through Chief Secretary, having its Office at Secretariat, Panaji. 2. Secretary Higher Education Junta House, 5th Floor, Panaji, Goa. 3. The Director of Technical Education Porvorim – Goa. 4. Shri Y. N. Malik, Asst. Stores Officer, Govt. Polytechnic, Panaji, Goa. ........... Respondents. Petitioner in person – absent. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Additional Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Ms. A. A. Agni, Advocate for respondent No. 4 - absent. CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.A. BRITTO, JJ. Date : 27th November, 2008. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (A.P. DESHPANDE, J.) By this petition, the petitioner questions the legality and propriety of the order dated 11/2/2003 purporting to recreate the post of Stores Officer, so also the consequent promotion granted to the respondent No.4 with retrospective effect, on the ground that the same is granted without considering the claim of the petitioner. 2. Record reveals that the post of Stores Officer was created by the Government vide order dated 19.8.1982. In the year 1991, respondent No.4 came to be granted ad hoc promotion to the said post from the substantive post of Asst. Store Officer. It is apparent from the record that neither the petitioner nor respondent No.4 were eligible to be appointed to the post of Stores Officer, as the said post had to be filled in by direct recruitment or by transfer of a qualified person on deputation. The post, in question, is not a promotional post and the promotion granted to respondent No.4 was ad hoc and by way of a stop- gap arrangement. The post of Stores Officer was abolished in the year 1994 and consequent to the abolition of the post, the incumbent working 3 therein on officiating basis, viz. respondent No. 4, was reverted to his substantive post of Asst. Stores Officer. The post of Stores Officer was abolished with effect from 28.4.1994. After almost a period of 10 years, the said post of Stores Officer was yet again recreated or restored by an order dated 11.2.2003. On restoration of the post, respondent No.4 who was working therein and was officiating before its abolition, was also granted ad hoc promotion when the post was restored in the year 2003. Though the incumbent viz., respondent No.4, was granted ad hoc appointment in the restored post, he was not granted any financial benefits for the intervening period from the year 1994 to 2003. It is this order which has been challenged by filing the present petition. 3. The very appointment of respondent No.4 under the impugned order is ad hoc in nature. Hence, the present petition challenging the same, is not tenable. No regular appointment has been granted to respondent No.4, nor could it be granted in view of the fact that the post, in question, was not a promotional post. Neither the petitioner, nor respondent No.4 were eligible for being promoted therein. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the petition and 4 the same deserves to be dismissed. At this stage, it will not be out of place to mention that the petitioner, so also respondent No.4 have retired from service and respondent No.4 was never granted regular promotion to the post of Stores Officer prior to his retirement. He retired from service as an ad hoc Stores Officer, informs the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. 4. In the result, there being no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.P. DESHPANDE, J. N.A. BRITTO, J. ssm.