JUDGMENT This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dated 30/8/2005 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge-II, Panaji, in Civil Suit No. 129/2004 (New) or Special Civil Suit No. 134/2000/B (Old), whereby the suit filed by original appellant was dismissed. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred in the manner in which they appear in the cause title of the said suit. The plaintiff had filed the said suit for following reliefs: A) For a decree, judgment and order declaring that the plaintiff be considered for promotion with effect from 20.4.1998 or earlier to the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent/Medical Superintendent on the basis of final seniority list dated 20/4/1998. B) For a decree, judgment and order declaring that the appointment and promotion of the defendant no. 6 to the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent/Medical Superintendent with effect from 16.7.1999 is illegal, null and void for want of final seniority list in case of defendant no. 6. C) For a decree, judgment and order that the plaintiff is entitled to raise in his retirement age from 58 years to 60 years as has been done in case of Dr. Gunakar H. Kamat. D) For a decree, judgment and order directing defendants No. 1 to 4 or Government to accept Voluntary Retirement of the plaintiff with all the conditions/outstanding dues satisfied/settled as set out in his application dated 14.8.2000 for voluntary retirement under voluntary Retirement Scheme/Separation Scheme 2000. E) For a decree, judgment and order directing defendants No. 1 to 4 to first settle the pending issues of the plaintiff relating to promotion, retirement age and leave before relieving him from Government service with effect from 1.1.2001. F) For a decree, judgment and order for compensation to be paid to the plaintiff for denial of his leave and loss cause to the plaintiff as a result thereof and the mental tension and agony caused to the plaintiff. F.1) For mandatory injunction declaring the impugned order No.5/74/80/PHD/part dated 21.11.2000 reliving the plaintiff from Government service as null and void setting aside the same. 3. By order dated 22/11/1978, the plaintiff was appointed as Tisiologist at T. B. Hospital in Goa Medical College, w.e.f 11/8/1972 and from 16/7/1973, he was appointed as ex-officio Medical Superintendent of T. B. Hospital in addition to his own duties. 3. By order dated 22/11/1978, the plaintiff was appointed as Tisiologist at T. B. Hospital in Goa Medical College, w.e.f 11/8/1972 and from 16/7/1973, he was appointed as ex-officio Medical Superintendent of T. B. Hospital in addition to his own duties. On 31/8/1990, the Government created one post of Medical Superintendent/Project Officer and one post of Deputy Medical Superintendent/Assistant Project Officer in Goa Medical College to be filed on ad-hoc basis. On coming to know about the same, the plaintiff addressed his representation dated 5/9/1990 to the Government for considering him for the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent. However, by order dated 22/11/1990, the defendant no. 6 was appointed to the said post of Deputy Medical Superintendent on ad-hoc basis. There were no Recruitment Rules, in respect of that post, at that time. The Recruitment Rules for the said post were framed on 27/2/1996. There was also no seniority list prepared in the Feeder Grade till then. According to the plaintiff, the defendant no. 6 has been illegally appointed/promoted to the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent on regular basis on 24/5/1996, without preparing the seniority list. The plaintiff alleged that the seniority list was drawn for the first time on 20/4/1998, wherein he stood first in the order of seniority. The plaintiff addressed representations dated 20/8/1999 and 4/11/1999 and thereafter on 14/8/2000, he addressed an application to the Government for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (V.R.S). In that application, he enlisted his grievances and sought for redressal before accepting his retirement. On 20/11/2000, the plaintiff made a representation to the Chief Minister seeking redressal of his grievances. However, by order dated 21/11/2000, the Government accepted the application for voluntary retirement made by the plaintiff without redressal of his grievances and relieved the plaintiff from his duties w.e.f. 1/1/2001. Hence, the suit. 4. The defendants, in their written statement, contended that the plaintiff was not eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent as he was not having a Post Graduate degree. It was alleged that the names of the candidates from the Feeder Grade along with required information of the candidates including the name of the plaintiff were forwarded to the Goa Public Service Commission (G.P.S.C) to be placed before duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C). The G.P.S.C. recommended the name of defendant no. 6 for promotion to the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent. The G.P.S.C. recommended the name of defendant no. 6 for promotion to the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent. The defendant no. 6 was appointed/promoted on regular basis, as he was the only candidate available and eligible for the promotion in the said post. The name of defendant no. 6 did not figure in the seniority list prepared in the year 1998 because the said list was of Medical Officers and Tisiologists and the defendant no. 6 was already holding a superior post of Deputy Medical Superintendent on regular basis since 1996. The Government had decided to include Medical Officers with teaching duties to be considered for increase in retirement age from 58 to 60 years. Since the plaintiff was not a Medical officer with teaching duties, his request for increase in the age of retirement to 60 years was not considered. 5. The plaintiff examined himself in support of his case and produced on record his orders of appointment dated 22/11/1972 and 16/7/1973, Order of creation of the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent, Government Gazette containing rules for appointment/recruitment rules to the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent, Seniority list dated 20/4/1998, representation made by him to the Chief Minister, and application for voluntary retirement under the V.R.S Scheme. The defendants had produced the documents such as, degree certificate of defendant no. 6 and various certificates of courses undergone by defendant no. 6. 6. Upon assessment of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court held that defendant no. 6 was appointed to the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent on 22/11/1990 on ad-hoc basis and his appointment was regularized on 24/5/1996, but the suit was filed on 27/12/2000, which in terms of section 58 of the Limitation Act, was barred by limitation. The trial Court held that it was beyond the scope of its jurisdiction to decide whether the recruitment rules were framed only to suit convenience of defendant no. 6 and whether they were right or wrong. It was further held that no employee can claim extension of service as a matter of right and the retirement age was admittedly 58 years and the rules governing retirement age provided that extension may be granted up to the age of 60 years to specialist in medicine or scientific field, if such extension is in public interest. It was further held that granting of extension was purely discretion of the Government. It was further held that granting of extension was purely discretion of the Government. The trial Court found that in the V.R.S application dated 14/8/2000, the plaintiff had mentioned that he is accepting V.R.S Scheme and requested that he should be relieved as per the rules. It was held that merely because some grievances were raised as pre-condition for accepting the retirement, that cannot mean that the Government could not have accepted the application without reddressal of his grievances. The trial court further held that since the plaintiff has already retired and is accepting benefits under the V.R.S scheme, the issue has become redundant. The plaintiff's suit, therefore, came to be dismissed. 7. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the Appeal and his legal representatives have come on record. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that since the plaintiff died during the pendency of the appeal, the prayer clauses (b), (c), (d) and (f-1) have become infructuous and they do not survive. He submitted that the defendant no. 6 was appointed as Deputy Medical Superintendent in the year 1990 and remained as such till May 1996, and that being on ad-hoc basis, the plaintiff could not make any grievance. He submitted that only after the seniority list was prepared on 20/4/1998, wherein the plaintiff was shown as the senior-most, cause of action accrued to him and therefore, the suit filed on 27/12/2000 was not barred by limitation. He further submitted that the main ground for considering defendant no. 6 was that he was having a post graduate degree and that the plaintiff did not have one. According to learned Counsel, the recruitment rules prescribed the requirement of recognized post graduate degree only for direct recruits and that in case of promotion, Medical Officers and Tisiologists in Goa Medical College with five years regular service in the grade was the requirement, which was duly fulfilled by the plaintiff. He, therefore, submitted that since the plaintiff was the senior most as per the seniority list prepared in 1998, defendant no. 6 could not have been regularized/promoted in the said post of Deputy Medical Superintendent. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is erroneous and ought to be set aside. 9. On the contrary, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf defendants no. 6 could not have been regularized/promoted in the said post of Deputy Medical Superintendent. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is erroneous and ought to be set aside. 9. On the contrary, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf defendants no. 1 to 5 submitted that as per the recruitment rules, the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent was a selection post and recognized post graduate degree/diploma was an essential educational qualification, which the defendant no. 6 had, but the plaintiff did not have. She further submitted that the required procedure of selection was duly followed and the G.P.S.C. had recommended the name of defendant no. 6 and the D.P.C. had selected defendant no. 6 to the said post. She further pointed out that though the suit has been filed against State of Goa, other officers, and offices of the Government, no notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was given and, therefore, the suit could not have been entertained. She invited my attention to the seniority list dated 20/4/1998 which is only in respect of the Medial Officers/Assistant Medial Officers/Tisiologists. She, therefore, submitted that the question of name of defendant no. 6, who was holding higher post, figuring in the same does not at all arise and absence of his name in that list cannot make the plaintiff senior to defendant no. 6. She submitted that as per the rules then applicable, the retirement age was 58 years and there was discretion in the Government to give extension in public interest to specialists. She contended that extension, therefore, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. She read out the evidence of PW.1 and pointed out that he has admitted that he was not eligible for the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent. She, therefore, urged that the impugned judgment and decree is in accordance with the settled principles of law based on the evidence on record and that there is no scope for interference with the same. 10. I have gone through the entire material on record in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties. 11. The recruitment rules are not stated to be illegal and there is no prayer to declare them as null and void. Merely claiming that the recruitment rules were framed only to suit the defendant no. 6, is not sufficient. 10. I have gone through the entire material on record in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties. 11. The recruitment rules are not stated to be illegal and there is no prayer to declare them as null and void. Merely claiming that the recruitment rules were framed only to suit the defendant no. 6, is not sufficient. The main question that arises for determination is therefore whether in terms of recruitment rules, the plaintiff was eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent. 12. It is the contention of the plaintiff that inspite of his being senior-most, as shown in the seniority list of 1998, and inspite of he having fulfilled the criteria for promotion to the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent, he has not been considered. However, the above contention is misconceived. The Memorandum No. 4/1/97/II/PHD/1436 dated 20/4/1998 to which the seniority list is annexed shows that the same is a tentative list of inter se seniority of the Medical officers/Assistant Medical Officers/Tisiologist (holding medical qualifications) in the Goa Medical College. The said seniority list does not include Deputy Medical Superintendents. The defendant no. 6 was already appointed, on regular basis, as Deputy Medical Superintendent prior to 20/4/1998 and therefore, the question of his name figuring in the said seniority list does not arise. On the basis of the said seniority list, plaintiff cannot claim to be senior to defendant no. 6. 13. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the recruitment rules did not prescribe the requirement of educational qualification of post graduation. This is also a misconceived contention. The Schedule to the Government of Goa, Goa Medical College, Group “A” Gazetted posts, Recruitment Rules, 1996, in its column no. 7 states the educational and other qualifications required for direct recruitment. One of the essential educational qualifications is stated to be a recognized post graduate degree/diploma qualification. It is true that in column no. 11 which pertains to recruitment by promotion/deputation/transfer etc., the said requirement of recognized post graduate degree/diploma qualification is not mentioned. However, in column no. 8, it is specifically mentioned that the educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment will apply in case of promotees. It, therefore, goes without saying that the educational qualification of recognized post graduate degree/diploma is mandatory in the case of recruitment by promotion also. However, in column no. 8, it is specifically mentioned that the educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment will apply in case of promotees. It, therefore, goes without saying that the educational qualification of recognized post graduate degree/diploma is mandatory in the case of recruitment by promotion also. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not have a post graduate degree or diploma qualification. In his cross-examination, PW.1 has himself admitted that he was not eligible for the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent as per the recruitment rules. There is no dispute that the defendant no. 6 has a diploma qualification in Gynecology and Obstetrics and thus, was eligible for the said post of Deputy Medical Superintendent. 14. The recruitment rules reveal that the said post of Deputy Medical Superintendent is a selection post. Hence, mere seniority would not be sufficient. There is no dispute that the names of various candidates from the feeder grade including the name of the plaintiff were forwarded to G.P.S.C, so as to place the same before the duly constituted D.P.C.. The G.P.S.C. recommended the name of Dr. Rajan V. S. Kunkolienkar for promotion to the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent and the D.P.C. selected him. Neither the G.P.S.C. nor the D.P.C. have been made parties to the suit. In such circumstances, the question of granting reliefs as claimed by the plaintiff do not arise, since the necessary parties were not before the Court. 15. The next question is whether the trial Court has erred in holding that the suit is barred by Law of Limitation. Defendant no. 6 was appointed to the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent on 22/11/1972 on ad-hoc basis and his appointment was regularized on 24/5/1996. The suit was filed on 27/12/2000. The statement of the plaintiff that he had to wait till the seniority list was prepared and that only when he found that he was placed first in the seniority list, he got cause of action to file the suit is also misconceived. As already stated above, the said seniority list was of Medical Officers/Assistant Medical Officers/Tisiologists and did not contain the officers of the higher grade. Defendant no. 6, as on the date of preparation of the said seniority list, was already an officer of the higher grade. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial court that the suit filed on 27/12/2000 is barred by limitation cannot be faulted. 16. Defendant no. 6, as on the date of preparation of the said seniority list, was already an officer of the higher grade. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial court that the suit filed on 27/12/2000 is barred by limitation cannot be faulted. 16. Admittedly, at the relevant time, the retirement age was 58 years. The Goa State Civil Services (Retirement) Rules, 2000 governing retirement age provided that extension may be granted up to the age of 60 years to specialist in medical or scientific field if such extension is in public interest. PW.1 has admitted that extension of age from 58 to 60 years was meant for medical officers in teaching category. Be that as it may, granting of extension, as is clear from the Rules, is purely at the discretion of the government. 17. In view of the discussion supra, it is clear that the impugned judgment and decree is in accordance with the settled principles of law and based on correct appreciation of evidence on record. No interference is, therefore, called for with the same. 18. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.