Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 802 (BOM)

Alexander P. D`Silva v. State of Goa

2025-04-29

BHARATI DANGRE

body2025
JUDGMENT : Bharati Dangre, J. 1. Thirteen Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 231/2020 and five Petitioners in WP/283/2022 are the employees of Tool Room And Training Centre, (hereinafter referred to as 'TRTC') and on having rendered services ranging from 10 to 15 years, they are aggrieved by the closure of TRTC suddenly and unilaterally w.e.f. 01.04.2005, resulting into their retrenchment, in complete violation of the Service rules and conditions and also in violation of principles of natural justice. Both the Writ Petitions therefore seek identical relief of issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 4-Director of Industries, Trade & Commerce, to consider the representation made by them and act as per the promise made in letter dated 24.11.2010 and 21.02.2011. A direction is therefore sought to absorb the Petitioners in government employment in terms of the express promise. Alternatively, by way of amendment, the Petitioners have sought direction against the State of Goa represented through Chief Secretary to remedy the Petitioners by way of compensation on failure on part of the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to add their names in the list of Surplus Pool, on denying them rightful opportunity of re-employment. 2. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr Surendra Desai for the Petitioners in both the Petitions and Mr Deep Shirodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents. In the wake of the urgency expressed and since it was indicated that the Petition shall be heard finally at the stage of admission, we issue 'Rule' and take up the Petitions for final hearing. 3. The Petitioners claim to be the formal employees of Tool Room & Training Centre (TRTC), a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act established in 1989. It is the claim of the Petitioners that TRTC was established under the aegis of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO), a body which was formed on 17.11.1966 by a resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly, (UNO) as an autonomous body inside the United Nations, as a specialized agency with a moto of "Progress through innovation" intended to promote innovation for long term industrial establishment. India, a founding member of United Nations since 1966, both a recipient and contributor to its programmes, with an intention to foster inclusive and sustainable industrial growth in specific sectors and regions, adopted TRTC as one of its venture. India, a founding member of United Nations since 1966, both a recipient and contributor to its programmes, with an intention to foster inclusive and sustainable industrial growth in specific sectors and regions, adopted TRTC as one of its venture. That is how TRTC, was founded, with the avowed purpose. 4. By registering the TRTC, Goa under the Societies Registration Act on 28.03.1988, with its office located at Secretariat, Panaji, Goa, the Society aimed at training technical personnel in designing and making tools for dyes and moulds. As per the Society's bye-Laws, the Society was to make a provision for advisory services for Small Scale Units including assistance in designing and developing tools for various processes and award certificates as may be appropriate to those who successfully complete the training course. As per the bye-laws the Society was to maintain a fund for crediting all money provided by Government of Goa and Government of India as well as all fees and other charges received by the Society. The bye-laws also contemplated buildings and bringing up such constructions which would be necessary to attain its object including maintaining and managing hostel for residence of students. 5. A Memorandum of Understanding was drawn between the TRTC and the Directorate of Industries & Mines for and on behalf of Government of Goa, which is placed before us through an affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 3 at Exhibit 'A'. The Memorandum of Understanding intended to establish a working relationship between the two, so as enable TRTC to effectively achieve its aims and objectives, for which the Government would provide the necessary support and also accept its obligation as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding. In return, the TRTC was responsible for achieving a target of self sufficiency and self-reliance. The mission of TRTC was set out as below: "To provide highest quality training and achieve excellence in the technology, manufacturing and marketing of tools, dyes, jigs, fixtures and moulds required for the industries in the State of Goa." 6. One of the target of TRTC was set out to achieve the ISO-9000 Certification for its training and production process and to provide and meet the highest quality long and short term training needs of the industry. One of the target of TRTC was set out to achieve the ISO-9000 Certification for its training and production process and to provide and meet the highest quality long and short term training needs of the industry. In addition, one of its target was to progressively become financially self-sufficient by the year 2002 and in the wake of the aforesaid, the Government of Goa undertook to bear the cost of long term training per year to be phased out after 2002, as by then, the fee shall have to be paid by the trainees for the course offered by TRTC. The release of funds to TRTC for achievement of self-reliance by the year 2002 was worked out to be nil, with the Government contribution decreasing from financial year 1997-1998 onwards. The Memorandum of Understanding clearly recorded that review of TRTC will be taken at the end of each financial year to overview its progress and returns and its move towards self-reliance by 2002 and a provision of Rs.180 lakhs for the 9th Five Year Plan was made. 7. It is in the aforesaid scheme, the Petitioners were recruited by TRTC in various capacities like Typist/Clerk, Skilled Worker Grade-I/II, Driver, Helper, Steno-Typist, Electrician, etc. The orders of appointment issued by General Manager of TRTC between the year 1993 to 1998 stipulated that the appointment will be on a temporary basis, in the prescribed payscale on period of probation of two years from the date of appointment. Though the Petitioners were continued in the appointed post, without any break in service, they were not specifically issued with any confirmation orders, but it is the claim of the Petitioners that their appointment was routed through the Employment Exchange and therefore they were appointed after following due process of law. 8. Despite serving for more than 10-15 years in TRTC, an unilateral decision was taken to shut its operations, without taking into consideration the long years spent by the Petitioners with the Authority in attaining its target and this constrained individual members as well as Union, to take up their claim before the Chief Minister of the State of Goa making a request for absorption of their services in any Government Department, as in the mid of their career their services were suddenly struck off, placing them in great hardship. Representations were also addressed to His Excellency, the Governor of Goa seeking an intervention. Representations were also addressed to His Excellency, the Governor of Goa seeking an intervention. 9. The representations of the Petitioners and similarly situated employees of TRTC resulted into a note signed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 28.03.2006, recording as under: 'NOTE "Consequent upon closure of Tool Room Centre at Cundaim and Quality Testing Centre at Corlim, 25 employees of TRTC and Quality Testing Centre are jobless and undergoing lot of hardships as their family members depend on them for their livelihood. Some of them have put in more than 12 years of service. In view of the above and considering the number of years of service rendered by them, as a special case, they need to be helped. Early action may, therefore, be taken to place them in the surplus pool of the Government so as to absorb them on suitable posts in various. Government Departments as and when the vacancies arise." Sd/- (Pratapsingh Rane) Chief Minister 28/03/2006' 10. The Petitioners, being aggrieved by their retrenchment, approached the Labour Court at Panaji and Ponda but upon a communication addressed by the Assistant Director of Administration (Adm), Government of Goa, to the President of All India Trade Union Congress indicating that the matter will be taken up by the Government only after withdrawal of the cases before the Labour Court, the proceedings were withdrawn by the Petitioners. On such instructions being issued, the Petitioners approached the Labour Court and sought withdrawal of their claims. 11. Upon the claims before the Labour Court being withdrawn, the Director of Industries, Trade and Commerce, addressed a communication on 06.11.2012 to the Under Secretary (Industries), stating that at the time of closure there were thirty three members of the Society (TRTC) who were retrenched and upon the proceedings being instituted before the Labour Court, they were withdrawn. It was stated that the employees who were skilled and qualified were in financial distress and have sought their absorption as per their respective qualifications. It was also reported that the proceedings filed by them before the Labour Court were withdrawn and the employees now sought compassionate appointment. 12. Despite the assurance, when no cognisance was taken of the grievance of the Petitioners, they approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petitions. On 22.02.2022, this Court passed the following order: "6. It was also reported that the proceedings filed by them before the Labour Court were withdrawn and the employees now sought compassionate appointment. 12. Despite the assurance, when no cognisance was taken of the grievance of the Petitioners, they approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petitions. On 22.02.2022, this Court passed the following order: "6. At this stage, without going into the legalities or otherwise of the action of the respondents or the issue of the rights and entitlement of the petitioners herein, we think that the interest of justice will be served if the Secretary (Personnel), Government of Goa looks into this matter by considering this very petition as the representation on behalf of the petitioners and takes an appropriate decision within four weeks from today. If the Secretary (Personnel) considers it necessary, then, be may bear some one or two representatives on behalf of the petitioners so that they are in a position to explain their version of the matter. Such decision should be placed before us at the end of this four weeks' period. 7. Since the larger issues raised by the petitioners are required to be examined, we agree that it will not be appropriate to dispose of this petition. However, we are quite sure that the Secretary (Personnel), will find out some solution to this issue particularly because the issue as raised is not entirely a legal issue alone but it also has a humanitarian element involved in it." On 11.04.2022, the learned Advocate General informed the Court that hearing has been granted to the Petitioners and decision will be taken before the next date. On 04.05.2022, the Court was informed that the Government has not agreed to consider the reliefs prayed for by the Petitioners and an affidavit shall be accordingly filed. Subsequently, on 10.10.2022 the Court recorded that since no settlement is possible with the Government, the Petition shall be placed for final disposal at the stage of admission and the pleadings were directed to be completed. 13. Subsequently, on 10.10.2022 the Court recorded that since no settlement is possible with the Government, the Petition shall be placed for final disposal at the stage of admission and the pleadings were directed to be completed. 13. Learned Senior Counsel Mr Desai in support of the Petitioners has urged before us that the case of the Petitioners is based on promissory estoppel, as the Petitioners being employees of the Society, which was formed with an object of implementing the project under the United Nations Development Programme, is a "State" and is covered within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. He would submit that the State has acted arbitrarily in not absorbing the Petitioners, who were appointed by following due procedure in the scheme sponsored by the United Nations itself and merely because it was not profitable to continue its existence, like a private entrepreneur, the scheme has been shut. He would submit that the Petitioners had attained the status of Government employees, as they were interviewed and found suitable to be recruited in TRTC which was envisaged as permanent unit to be financed by the United Nations and the State and Central Government until it became self-sufficient. Submitting that the TRTC was conceived and financed under the United Nations Development Programme and set up by the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, with unique mandate to promote dynamic industrial development and to provide sustainable industrialisation and to foster innovation, it was not to be allowed to be shut down unilaterally and that too all of a sudden. In any case, upon having done so, with effect from 01.04.2005, the Hon'ble Chief Minister and His Excellency intervened and directed that as special case, the Staff of TRTC need to be absorbed by placing them in surplus pool of the Government and they should be considered for absorption as and when the vacancies arise. The TRTC Administrator by communication dated 24.01.2006 also forwarded a statement including the names, designation, date of joining, etc. of its Staff to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and to the Respondent No. 1 with a request to include their names in the list of surplus pool. 14. The TRTC Administrator by communication dated 24.01.2006 also forwarded a statement including the names, designation, date of joining, etc. of its Staff to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and to the Respondent No. 1 with a request to include their names in the list of surplus pool. 14. Mr Desai would also submit that the Petitioners are members of All India Trade Union Congress headed by its President, Mr Christopher Fonseca, who went on negotiating with the Government in insisting that their names be included in the surplus pool of the Government, so that they may be absorbed in various Government Departments considering their expenence and qualifications. In the wake of the suggestions g1ven, the Petitioners even withdrew their Petitions from the Labour Courts so that their cases could be taken up for consideration by the Government by absorbing them on the Government establishments. 15. Mr Desai would place reliance upon the decision delivered in the case of one Elvidio B. D'Souza vs. State of Goa & Ors., who had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 651 of 2010 which was decided on 26.09.2019 and this Court, referred to the Goa Re-deployment of Surplus Staff against Vacancies of Group C and D Posts Rules, 1993 and directed the Respondents to absorb the Petitioner and/or to regularise his services at the ITI, Mapusa, which is operated by the Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship and award the Petitioner all consequential benefits commensurate to such absorption/regularisation. 16. Mr Desai has placed reliance upon the following decisions: (i) Collector of Bombay vs. Municipal Corporation of City of Bombay and Ors., MANU/SC/0001/19 (ii) Union of India and Ors. vs. Indo Mghan Agencies Ltd., MANU/SC/0021/19 (iii) Motilal Padamsat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Ors., MANU/SC/0336/1978 (iv) Bhim Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana, (1981) 2 SCC 673 (v) Suryanarayan Yadav vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors., MANU/SC/0233/1985 (vi) Manuelsons Hotels Private Limited vs. State of Kerala and Ors., (2016) SCC 766 (vii) Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of City of Thane and Ors., MANU/MH/5536/2023 (viii) State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 17. vs. Municipal Corporation of City of Thane and Ors., MANU/MH/5536/2023 (viii) State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 17. Learned Senior Advocate placed emphasis on the settled position of law that promissory estoppel also operate against the Government and the defence of the Government has no merit as the Government decided to dose down TRTC, although it was intended to be a permanent unit and therefore it was responsible for absorbing the Petitioners, who had rendered more than 10 years of service and therefore they deserve to be treated as regular employees. Comparison was drawn with Elvidio D'Souza who was conferred similar benefit by this Court and therefore it is urged that the TRTC, a Society registered under Societies Act being governed by Article 12, cannot act in a discriminatory manner and if it has done so, then its decision is arbitrary. 18. Mr Deep Shirodkar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, on the contrary would rely upon the affidavit filed by the Under Secretary (Personnel-H), Department of Personnel, Government of Goa filed on 27.06.2023 and he do not dispute, the fact that TRTC was originally construed to be an institute to be financed under the United Nations Development Programme and it was to run from funds received under UNDP. Meter the said funds were exhausted, the affidavit states that the Memorandum of Understanding was signed between TRTC and the Government which was supposed to release funds to it till it became self-sufficient in the year 2002. By placing reliance upon the affidavit, he would submit that TRTC could not generate funds on its own and could not achieve self-sufficiency and since it was not possible for the Government to fund TRTC anymore, it became a non-performing asset and finally, a decision was taken to shut down the same w.e.f. 01.04.2005. It is submitted that the said decision was taken by the governing council of TRTC and all thirty-three employees were retrenched and their dues were cleared. 19. It is submitted that the said decision was taken by the governing council of TRTC and all thirty-three employees were retrenched and their dues were cleared. 19. Mr Shirodkar has opposed the pleadings in the Petition by submitting that employees of TRTC were never the employees of State Government as TRTC was registered as a Society and the Petitioners were its employees governed by its own set of Rules and Bye-laws and by no stretch of imagination could they be referred to as Government servants or Government employees, who are entitled for absorption upon closure of a Government Department. In addition, it is also the submission of Mr Shirodkar that the age of the Petitioners range from 52-59 years and in fact some of them have already attained the age of superannuation. It is specifically submitted that the State Government through a well considered procedure have arrived at a decision to the effect that the Petitioners cannot be considered for absorption in Government Departments and this decision was communicated to the Court. 20. As far as Elvidio D'Souza is concerned, Mr Shirodkar has distinguished his case by submitting that Mr D'Souza was sent on deputation as Instructor at ITI, Mapusa on 06.07.2004, much before the TRTC was abolished and therefore, when he sought his absorption in ITI, the Division Bench of this Court, deemed it appropriate to regularise his employment at ITI Mapusa, as he could not have gone to his post in TRTC which was already abolished. We have considered the rival claims staked before us. 21. The Petitioners were appointed on various posts by the TRTC, which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act on 28.03.1988. The Society was established with the objectives set out in its Bye-laws and though Mr. Desai has vehemently asserted that it is registered as a Government Society, we do not find any indication to that effect as we find its registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Society was indeed established with the object of training of technical personnel in designing and making tools, dyes and moulds and provide advisory services to small scale unit including assistance in designing and developing tools for various processes. The Society was indeed established with the object of training of technical personnel in designing and making tools, dyes and moulds and provide advisory services to small scale unit including assistance in designing and developing tools for various processes. It was intended to award certificates to those who have successfully completed the training course and though it was established under UNDP, with the sole purpose of encouraging industrial growth, but it received funding from the United Nations Development Programme for a short span of time and thereafter Memorandum of Understanding 1s entered between the Government of Goa and TRTC, the Society, so as to enable to achieve its aims and objectives, being to provide quality training and achieve excellence in technology, manufacturing and marketing of tools, dyes, moulds, jigs and fixtures, etc. required for the industry in the State of Goa. However, the target to be achieved by TRTC was to meet the highest quality long and short terms training needs of the industry and progressively become self-sufficient by the year 2002. According to the Memorandum of Understanding, the Government of Goa was to contribute to its fund in the estimated expenditure of running the Society but from the year 2002 it was expected to be financially self-sufficient, as by this time it would generate income by imparting short term training. In addition, TRTC was also permitted to grant quality testing centre as a strategic business relief, so that it can have its own earning. However, when it failed to achieve its target, the result was obvious. The Government took a decision to shut down the unit from 01.04.2005 and the employees working on its establishment being thirty three in number including the Petitioners before us, were required to be retrenched. 22. The request of the Petitioners, is and always was to absorb them in various Government Departments. The premise of their request is to consider their long rendered service to the Society and treat them as Government servants. Their request was met with a positive recommendation from the Hon'ble Chief Minister as the note of the Department indicate that early action on their representation was prayed for so as to place them in surplus pool of the Government so as to absorb them on suitable post in Government Department as and when the vacancies arise. Their request was met with a positive recommendation from the Hon'ble Chief Minister as the note of the Department indicate that early action on their representation was prayed for so as to place them in surplus pool of the Government so as to absorb them on suitable post in Government Department as and when the vacancies arise. It is trite position in law that the internal notings in the Government are not reflective of its decision. In Shanti Sports Club and Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 705 the Apex Court has clearly highlighted this issue when it noted that all executive actions of the Government of India and the Government of a State are required to be taken in the name of the President or the Governor of the State concerned, as the case may be [Articles 77(1) and 166(1)]. Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the President or the Governor of a State, as the case may be, are required to be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the President or the Governor, as the case may be; in terms of Article 166(3) which stipulated that the Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business insofar as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion. 23. As far as the note in the file is concerned, the Apex Court has specifically observed thus: "43. A noting record ed in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, such noting can be treated as a decision of the Government. Even if the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be termed as a decision of the Government unless it is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Articles 77(1) and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2). Even if the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be termed as a decision of the Government unless it is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Articles 77(1) and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2). The noting in the file or even a decision gets culminated into an order affecting right of the parties only when it is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and authenticated in the manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article 166(2). A noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned and the court cannot take cognizance of the earlier noting or decision for exercise of the power of judicial review. 44. In State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, AIR 1961 SC 493 this Court considered the question whether a provisional decision taken by the Council of Ministers to reinstate an employee could be made the basis for filing an action for issue of a mandamus for reinstatement and held: (AIR p. 512, Para 42) "42....We are unable to understand this argument. Even if the Council of Ministers had provisionally decided to reinstate the respondent that would not prevent the Council from reconsidering the matter and coming to a contrary conclusion later on, until a final decision is reached by them and is communicated to the Rajpramukh in the form of advice and acted upon by him by issuing an order in that behalf to the respondent." 24. It is well settled position that merely noting something on the file does not amount to an order and for something amounting to an order of the State Government, it is required that the order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required under clause (1) of Article 166 and then it has to be communicated. In the case of Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority vs. Vishnudev Cooperative Housing Society & Ors., (2018) 8 SCC 215 . Their Lordships of the Apex Court once again reiterated as below: "49) Our answer to the question is "no". In the case of Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority vs. Vishnudev Cooperative Housing Society & Ors., (2018) 8 SCC 215 . Their Lordships of the Apex Court once again reiterated as below: "49) Our answer to the question is "no". It is for the reasons that First, a mere noting in the official files of the Government while dealing with any matter pertaining to any person is essentially an internal matter of the Government and carried with it no legal sanctity; Second, once the decision on such issue is taken and approved by the competent authority empowered by the Government in that behalf, it is required to be communicated to the person concerned by the State Government. 50) In other words, so long as the decision based on such internal deliberation is not approved and communicated by the competent authority as per the procedure prescribed in that behalf to the person concerned, such noting does not create any right in favour of the person concerned nor it partake the nature of any legal order so as to enable the person concerned to claim any benefit of any such internal deliberation. Such noting(s) or land deliberation(s) are always capable of being changed or land amended or land withdrawn by the competent authority." 25. In light of the aforesaid, a stray noting under the signature of the Hon'ble Chief Minister do not amount to a decision of the Government. In fact, when we have perused the notings down below the noting of the Chief Minister, the Personnel Department has made the following notings: "Note on pre-page may pl. be seen. Surplus cell is functioning in A.R.D. We may transfer this Note to them for taking necessary action in the matter. ARD may advice in the matter on prepage." Thereafter, the file was forwarded to the Administrative Reforms Department with the following noting: "Above note may please be seen. It seems that the file/proposal on the issue was referred to A.R.D. earlier by the Department & this Department has already tendered our advice on the matter. About Minutes of Hon'ble Chief Minister at pre-page) it is stated that A.R.D. is not concerned with the subject of deciding the incumbent in TRTC as surplus. However) Administrative Department may have to take necessary action in the matter in consultation with Personnel Deptt. About Minutes of Hon'ble Chief Minister at pre-page) it is stated that A.R.D. is not concerned with the subject of deciding the incumbent in TRTC as surplus. However) Administrative Department may have to take necessary action in the matter in consultation with Personnel Deptt. Once the incumbents are declared surplus, A.R.D could find suitable posting for their re-deployment. Since the Re-deployment of surplus Staff Rules are framed by Personnel Deptt, Personnel Deptt has to advice the Admn. Department on the issue of declaring employees of TRTC & Quality Testing Centre as surplus." The aforesaid Note is followed by the following inscription: "ARD do not have to play any role as far as this proposal is concern. It is the concern administrative dept who has to move the clear cut proposal in this regard to the Govt. cabinet decision." 26. The above noting Is followed by a letter from the Administrator, TRTC, addressed to the Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department, along with the statement showing the particulars of the persons to be included in the list of Surplus Pool. However, ultimately, the Personnel Department, arrived at a decision which is produced before us through the affidavit stating that after the Court passed an order on 22.02.2022 directing that the interest of justice would be served if the Secretary (Personnel) looks into the matter by considering the Petition as a representation and take an appropriate decision within four weeks, if necessary after hearing the representative of the Petitioners. The Chief Secretary who also happened to be the Principal Secretary (Personnel), convened a meeting on 22.03.2022. The representatives of the Petitioners were heard and the Principal Secretary (Personnel)/Chief Secretary concluded as under: "i) 17 Petitioners are in the age group of 50-59 years and 01 of them has already attained 60 years, being the retirement age for the Goa Government employees. ii) Most of the retrenched workers were below age 45 years and were eligible to apply for posts as per Government rules. However, they failed to exercise this option. iii) Wage Retrenchment Compensation, Gratuity, Leave Encasbment and net earned wages have been paid to the retrenched workers. However, on humanitarian grounds, the Petitioners may file application before the Goa Human Resource Development Corporation for accommodating them by following due procedure by giving age relaxation, if required, subject to Government approval." 27. However, they failed to exercise this option. iii) Wage Retrenchment Compensation, Gratuity, Leave Encasbment and net earned wages have been paid to the retrenched workers. However, on humanitarian grounds, the Petitioners may file application before the Goa Human Resource Development Corporation for accommodating them by following due procedure by giving age relaxation, if required, subject to Government approval." 27. The affidavit placed before us has also clarified that the Petitioners cannot place reliance on Goa Re-Development of Surplus Staff against vacancies of Group C and D Posts Rules, 1993, as these Rules are applicable only to Government employees. In the wake of the specific stand adopted by the Government that the Petitioners are not Government employees/Government servants which has definite connotation, being appointed in the Government Department by the Government and holding the post as Government servant, we are not convinced by the arguments advanced by Mr Desai that the Society itself is Government. The TRTC may have been registered as a Society with the objective of encouraging industrial development but admittedly it was not the department of the State Government. The Government was funding it for a while but always intended that it should, after the initial funding function as a self sufficient financed institution but when it did not succeed in continuing in such capacity, we cannot accede to the request of the Petitioners that the Government shall be compelled to absorb them. It is relevant to note that Government has its own Recruitment Rules for various posts and when recruitment to a Government post has to commence, it has to be strictly in accordance with Recruitment Rules and any backdoor entry shall be discouraged. The Petitioners, did not gain entry into Government service by following the route through its Recruitment Rules and hence they cannot claim a vested right to be absorbed into Government service. Merely because they have worked with the Society, according to us, do not confer them a right to be labelled as "Government servants" which would make them entitled to be absorbed as Government servants. 28. The direction to consider the case of the Petitioners in terms of the order passed by this Court was purely on humanitarian consideration. However, we do not find any promise made by the State in favour of the Petitioners to absorb them, as they were not Government employees and they cannot claim their absorption as legitimate expectation. 28. The direction to consider the case of the Petitioners in terms of the order passed by this Court was purely on humanitarian consideration. However, we do not find any promise made by the State in favour of the Petitioners to absorb them, as they were not Government employees and they cannot claim their absorption as legitimate expectation. After following the due procedure, which is placed before us, along with the affidavit filed by the Respondent-Directorate of Industries, Trade And Commerce, Government of Goa, along with the necessary notings where a conscious decision was taken, as TRTC could not attain financial self-sufficiency and the Government did not render support beyond November 2002, the Training Centre was closed down as per notice issued by the Administrator on 31.03.2005. We do not find any obligation on the part of the State Government to absorb the Petitioners, not being its employees in the wake of closure of TRTC. 29. Mr Desai has placed reliance upon the various authorities in support of his submission that it is not correct to say that no promissory estoppel against the Government applies since it exercises sovereign, governmental, public or executive powers. There is no dispute about the said proposition since, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is a doctrine whose foundation is that an unconscionable departure by one party (i.e. the promisor) from the subject matter of an assumption which may be of fact or law, present or future, and which has been adopted by the other party (i.e. the promise) as the basis of some course of conduct, act or mission, should not be allowed to pass muster. The promissory estoppel procedure can be the basis of an independent cause of action for which detriment need not be proved but it is sufficient if the party establish that he has acted upon the representation made. The reliance on the aforesaid proposition, is only worth to the extent of the principle of law that has been laid down. However, in the peculiar facts, we do not find that any promise was held to the Petitioners by the Government, as we have already adopted a view that the Petitioners are not government employees and therefore, it was not mandatory for the Government to absorb them into Government service. However, in the peculiar facts, we do not find that any promise was held to the Petitioners by the Government, as we have already adopted a view that the Petitioners are not government employees and therefore, it was not mandatory for the Government to absorb them into Government service. The reliance placed upon the decision in the case of Bhim Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana (supra), is a case where the Government employees moved over to a new department and it is in this facts, it was held that the Government cannot go back on the earlier promise as the employees had acted on the promise and they cannot be defeated of their hopes which have crystallised into rights. Similarly, the decision in the case of Manuelsons Hotels Private Limited vs. State of Kerala (supra), though the law laid down is to the fact that when Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and, in fact, the promisee, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution. However, the aforesaid decision came in the wake of the facts that the State Government had accepted the recommendations of the Government of India suggesting that tourism be declared as an "industry" and inter alia, as an incentive/concession provided for exemption from building tax levied by the Revenue Department. In pursuance thereof, the Kerala Building Tax Amendment was passed and Section 3A included in the year 1990 which provided that the Government may by a notification in the gazette may exempt from the payment of building tax under the Act. Actually, no notification was issued in exercise of the power till this provision was deleted on 01.03.1993. The Appellants having been constructed a hotel completed in the year 1991, received a notice for filing the returns under the Kerala Buildings Tax Act, 1975. Actually, no notification was issued in exercise of the power till this provision was deleted on 01.03.1993. The Appellants having been constructed a hotel completed in the year 1991, received a notice for filing the returns under the Kerala Buildings Tax Act, 1975. It is in this background it was held that non-issuance of a notification under Section 3A was an arbitrary act of the Government which required to be remedied by application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, as no other consideration of overwhelming public interest exists in order that the Government be justified in resiling from its promise. 30. In addition, the reliance in the case of State of Gujarat and Ors. vs. PWD Employees Union (supra) as regards the benefit of regularisation as well as the decision in the case of State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi (supra), also do not come to the rescue of the Petitioners as they were never recognised by the Government as its employees nor are we satisfied with the contention of Mr Desai that they fall within the purview of Government employee, who are the employees appointed by the State Government, by adopting a procedure prescribed by its Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and they are the persons discharging public duties, being governed by the Conduct Rules formulated by the Government. Their salary and other benefits flow from the Government and unlike the Petitioners who are appointed by a Society governed by its Bye-laws. Even if the services of such Government servants are temporarily at the disposal of the local and other authorities, they shall not cease to be government employees/servants as long as they continue to hold civil post under the State Government. 31. This not being the situation here, the Petitioners failed to satisfy the test of being government servants and we find no merit and substance in the contentions raised on their behalf, through the two Petitions that the Government held out promise to them, we are not persuaded to accept the said contention. 31. This not being the situation here, the Petitioners failed to satisfy the test of being government servants and we find no merit and substance in the contentions raised on their behalf, through the two Petitions that the Government held out promise to them, we are not persuaded to accept the said contention. On the other hand, Mr Deep Shirodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate has placed reliance in the decision of Rajendra and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (1999) 2 SCC 317 when the Appellants and the Writ Petitioners were employees of District Rural Development Agencies (DRDAs), a registered Society aimed at Integrated Rural Development under various government schemes were terminated as State Government decided to abolish 273 posts in different DRDAs in the wake of limited funds available to the Agencies, the Apex Court observed thus:- "13. In our opinion, when the posts temporarily created for fulfilling the needs of a particular project or scheme limited in its duration come to an end on account of the need for the project itself having come to an end either because the project was fulfilled or had to be abandoned wholly or partially for want of funds, the employer cannot by a writ of mandamus be directed to continue employing such employees as have been dislodged because such a direction would amount to requisition for creation of posts though not required by the employer and funding such posts though the employer did not have the funds available for the purpose. The decision taken by the respondent-State to abolish the posts was a bona fide decision taken after due application of mind by appointing an Expert Committee which went deep into all relevant considerations and made recommendations in the interest of rationalization. The decision is based on administrative and financial considerations. There is nothing wrong in the societies having acted on the policy decision of the State Government. Really speaking there was hardly anything left to be done by the DRDA societies at their own end. Inasmuch as the societies did not have any funds of their own independent of those made available by the State Government how could the societies have continued with the posts and the incumbents thereon though they were left with no means to pay salaries attaching with the posts?" 32. In State of U.P. & Anr. Inasmuch as the societies did not have any funds of their own independent of those made available by the State Government how could the societies have continued with the posts and the incumbents thereon though they were left with no means to pay salaries attaching with the posts?" 32. In State of U.P. & Anr. vs. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S. & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 675 the Apex Court categorically ruled that before the employee claim a right of absorption, it was imcumbent upon them to show right of absorption in Government Departments or other public section undertakings. In paragraphs 45 and 46, principle of law was set out to the following effect: "45. Again, in our considered opinion, it was incumbent on the employees to show the right of absolption of retrenched employees in Government Department or other Public Sector Undertakings. The petitioners had prayed for a writ of mandamus which presupposes a legal right in favour of the applicant. Such right must be a subsisting right and enforceable in a Court of Law. There must be corresponding legal duty on the part of the respondent-Corporation or Government which required the Corporation or Government 'to do that which a statute required it to do'. No such right of absorption has been shown by the petitioners. Nor any such corresponding duty of the respondents could be shown to the High Court by the employees. As noted above, the case of the Corporation was that the retrenched employees could be absorbed only in accordance with statutory rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. No such direction of absorption of all employees, hence, could be issued by the High Court. The High Court failed to appreciate all these relevant considerations. Even the application by which the Corporation sought to place on record statutory rules was rejected by the Court and a writ of mandamus was issued. 46. It is well settled that a Court of Law can direct the Government or an instrumentality of State by mandamus to act in consonance with law and not in violation of statutory provisions. Unless a Court records a finding that act of absorption of all employees of the Corporation either in Government Department or in any other Public Sector Undertaking is in accordance with law, no writ can be issued. Unless a Court records a finding that act of absorption of all employees of the Corporation either in Government Department or in any other Public Sector Undertaking is in accordance with law, no writ can be issued. Therefore, even on that ground, the directions of the High Court deserve to be set aside." 33. In the light of the aforesaid decision, both on facts and law, since the Petitioners have not made out any case for their absorption m Government Department on their retrenchment from TRTC, the Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.