Judgment : By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs: (A) that this Honourable Court be graciously pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order of direction calling for the records from the Respondent Corporation culminating in order of promotion of the Respondent no.2, to the post of Assistant Field Manager, and after examining the legality, validity, propriety and reasonability thereof, be pleased to quash and set-aside the order dated 23/12/2005; (B) that this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent Corporation to forthwith withdraw the order dated 23/12/2005; and further direct the Respondent Corporation to hold review Departmental Promotion Committee and fill up the post of Assistant Field Manager as per the Recruitment Rules; by first considering the Petitioners herein; and be pleased to further direct and order; to consider and promote the Petitioners; to the post of Assistant Field Manager of the Goa Industrial Development Corporation. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition, briefly, are as follows: By order dated 24/11/1986, the petitioners were appointed by the respondent no.1 to the post of B.C.W.I. (Pump Operators); petitioner no. 1 as from 22/9/86 and petitioners no. 2 and 3 as from 24/9/86. Petitioners were senior to the respondent no. 2. The designation of various posts in existence were changed by respondent no.1 vide circular dated 14/5/1992 and the post of B.C.W.I. (Pump Operator) was designated as Technician. Vide memorandum dated 11/10/1996, a tentative seniority list of technicians in the establishment of respondent no.1-corporation came to be published and in this list, petitioner no.1 was shown at serial no.11, petitioner no. 2 at serial no.13, petitioner no. 3 at serial no.15 and the respondent no. 2 was shown at serial no.17. On 26/12/1997, the Recruitment Rules for recruitment of Group “A, B, C, D” posts in the respondent no. 1-corporation came to be published in the Official Gazette. On 29/1/1999, respondent no.1 granted Time Bound Promotional Scales to the petitioners as well as to the respondent no. 2. 2 was shown at serial no.17. On 26/12/1997, the Recruitment Rules for recruitment of Group “A, B, C, D” posts in the respondent no. 1-corporation came to be published in the Official Gazette. On 29/1/1999, respondent no.1 granted Time Bound Promotional Scales to the petitioners as well as to the respondent no. 2. Subsequently, on 19/4/2000, another tentative seniority list of technicians was issued wherein objections were invited from the concerned employees and in this list the petitioner no.1 was shown at serial no.19, petitioners no. 2 and 3 were shown at serial nos. 21 and 23 respectively whereas respondent no. 2 was shown at serial no. 25. Vide memorandum dated 11/7/2000, the final seniority list of technicians was issued by respondent no.1. This final seniority list was, however, withdrawn on 20/11/2000 stating that there was some typographical error and a fresh tentative seniority list was issued, thereby inviting objections along with documentary evidence. Ultimately, vide memorandum dated 7/8-11-2001, the respondent no. 1 issued final seniority list wherein the petitioner no.1 was shown at serial no. 17, petitioner no. 2 at serial no. 19, petitioner no. 3 at serial no. 21 and respondent no. 2 at serial no. 23. Thus, the respondent no. 2 was junior to the petitioners. However, on 23/11/2005, the respondent no. 1-corporation promoted the respondent no. 2 to the post of Assistant Field Manager. On 4/1/2006, the petitioner no. 2 addressed a representation to the respondent no.1 and on 18/1/2006, the petitioners no.1 and 3 also addressed similar representation to the respondent no.1. On 31/1/2006, the Goa Daman and Diu Industrial Development Corporation Employees' Union, upon receipt of various representations from its members, in protest against promotion of respondent no. 2 to the post of Assistant Field Manager, addressed a representation to the respondent no.1. Again on 11/3/2006, the petitioners made a representation to the respondent no.1 requesting therein to do justice to them. Since nothing was heard from the respondent no.1, the present petition was filed. 3. Rule was issued in the matter on 24/4/2006, directing that the appointment of respondent no. 2 shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. Both the respondents were duly served on rule. However, since none appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2, this Court, on 8/1/2013, directed the petitioners to serve respondent no. 3. Rule was issued in the matter on 24/4/2006, directing that the appointment of respondent no. 2 shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. Both the respondents were duly served on rule. However, since none appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2, this Court, on 8/1/2013, directed the petitioners to serve respondent no. 2 again by private notice and to give him intimation that the petition will be finally heard. It was further ordered that in the event respondent no. 2 or his counsel does not appear, the matter will be decided in their absence. 4. Respondent no. 2 was accordingly served afresh. He filed Affidavit-in-Reply. In the reply, the respondent no. 2 submitted that he is a trained experienced electrician and functioning in electrical engineering and electrical techniques. He further submitted that his State Industrial Training Institute/Craftsman's course has been longer, of two years duration, followed by one year compulsory apprenticeship being in electrical trade. It is further alleged that the petitioners do not belong to the electrical engineering and electrical technical field and have not functioned in electrical trade. He further stated that the respondent no.1-corporation's head office was to be shifted to the new building and senior electrical certifying engineer from P.W.D. for supervising the electrical work was not available after the requisition request. He further submitted that by order dated 4/7/2003, on administrative grounds, the respondent no.1 made an arrangement, with immediate effect, of respondent no. 2 supervising the electrical work of new upcoming Head Office Building at Patto, Panaji, in addition to his own work as Technician/Pump Operator at Tivim Industrial Estate, as stop gap arrangement till further orders. He submitted that by order dated 22/12/2005, the respondent no.1 upon recommendation of D.P.C. promoted him to the post of Assistant Field Manager with immediate effect. In the circumstances above, according to respondent no. 2, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that as per the seniority lists, tentative as well as final, the petitioners were senior to respondent no. 2. He invited our attention to the Recruitment Rules pertaining to Assistant Field Manager which reveal that the same is non-selection post and that the petitioners were eligible for promotion to that post, as they possessed the required qualification. He submitted that since the petitioners were senior, the respondent no. 2. He invited our attention to the Recruitment Rules pertaining to Assistant Field Manager which reveal that the same is non-selection post and that the petitioners were eligible for promotion to that post, as they possessed the required qualification. He submitted that since the petitioners were senior, the respondent no. 2 could not have been promoted, by superseding the petitioners. He, therefore, urged that the petition is liable to be allowed in terms of prayer clauses “A” and “B”. 6. Respondent no. 2 as well as his counsel are absent. 7. Mr. Sonak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 submitted that the petitioners had no experience in electrical technique and that in the year 2003 there was an urgency of shifting of the head office to Patto, Panaji-Goa and there was no expert electrician for supervising electrical work of the new head office building. He submitted that it was only respondent no. 2 who was available as electrician since he was actually working as such. He, therefore, submitted that the appointment of respondent no. 2 to the post of Assistant Field Manager came to be made due to the exigency of service and was therefore justified. 8. We have gone through the material on record in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Admittedly, the petitioners were working as Pump Operators with respondent no.1 as from 24/11/1986, which post was designated as technician as from 14/5/1992. The tentative seniority list issued vide Memorandum dated 11/10/1996 as well as 19/4/2000 showed all the three petitioners as senior to respondent no. 2. The final seniority list issued vide memorandum dated 7/8-11-2001 showed petitioner no.1 at serial no.17, petitioner no. 2 at serial no. 19, petitioner no. 3 at serial no. 21, whereas respondent no. 2 was shown at serial no. 23. This seniority list prepared by respondent no.1 has not been denied by the respondent no. 2. Therefore, indisputably, the petitioners were senior to respondent no. 2. 10. The Recruitment Rules known as the Goa, Industrial Development Corporation (Goa IDC) Class “A, B, C, D” posts Recruitment Rules dated 7/11/1997 published in the Official Gazette dated 26/12/1997, insofar as the post of Assistant Field Manager is concerned, in column no. 5 of the schedule, show that the said post is non-selection post. 2. 10. The Recruitment Rules known as the Goa, Industrial Development Corporation (Goa IDC) Class “A, B, C, D” posts Recruitment Rules dated 7/11/1997 published in the Official Gazette dated 26/12/1997, insofar as the post of Assistant Field Manager is concerned, in column no. 5 of the schedule, show that the said post is non-selection post. It is further seen from column no.11 that Technician/Field Assistant Grade-I with 5 years regular service in the grade possessing S.S.C.E. and Trade Certificate from recognized, I.T.I or equivalent is entitled for promotion. Indisputably, the petitioners had the required qualification and they were eligible for promotion to the said posts of Assistant Field Manager at the relevant time. Since the said post is non-selection post, the same had to go as per the seniority. Therefore, the petitioners being senior to the respondent no. 2, they were bound to be considered prior to respondent no. 2. In the facts and circumstances above, the petition is bound to succeed. The order dated 23/12/2005, promoting respondent no. 2 to the post of Assistant Field Manager is liable to be quashed and set aside. The respondent no.1-corporation will have to hold review DPC and fill the said post as per the recruitment rules. 11. In the result, we pass the following order: (i) The order of promotion dated 23/12/2005 passed by respondent no.1 promoting respondent no. 2 to the post of Assistant Field Manager is quashed and set aside. (ii) Respondent no. 1 is directed to hold review D.P.C. and fill up the post of Assistant Field Manager as per the Recruitment Rules by considering eligible candidates and to give promotion on the basis of seniority strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules dated 7/11/1997 within a period of eight weeks from today. 12. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case. Petition stands disposed of, accordingly.