Bombay High Court

ROOPA NADKARNI AND 2 ORSversusTHE CHAIRMAN, MORMUGAO PORT AUTHORITY AND 2 ORS

Disposal: Disposed of

Holding

A writ petition may be disposed of when the respondent’s unequivocal statement confirms that the relief sought will be granted.

Summary

The petitioners, employees of the Mormugao Port Authority (MPA), filed a writ petition seeking a court direction that three vacant Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) posts be filled by promotion from their feeder posts. The MPA counsel stated that the authority’s policy reserves one‑third of the ten sanctioned posts for promotion and that the petitioners are next in line for those three positions. The petitioners asked the court to confirm that the posts would indeed be filled by promotion. The High Court accepted the MPA’s statement as sufficient proof that the petitioners are eligible and that the promotion policy will be applied, and consequently disposed of the petition without further orders. The decision rests on the principle that a clear, unambiguous admission by the respondent satisfying the relief sought allows the court to close the petition.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate method for the court to dispose of a writ petition when the respondent admits that the relief sought will be granted?
Does the MPA’s policy of reserving one‑third of posts for promotion comply with service rules and administrative law?
Are the petitioners entitled to promotion to the three Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) posts as they are next in line?

Subjects

promotion
recruitment
public authority
service law
writ petition
administrative law
court disposal

Judgment

2026:BHC-GOA:1986-DB                         (34) WP 873.2026




                Sonam


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 873 OF 2026

                 ROOPA NADKARNI AND ORS.                        … Petitioners

                                          Versus

                 THE CHAIRMAN, MORMUGAO
                 PORT AUTHORITY AND 2 ORS.                      …Respondents

                Mr. Preetam Talaulikar, Advocate for the Petitioners.

                Petitioner No. 3 is present in person.

                Mr. G. K. Sardessai with Ms. S. Bangera, Advocates for
                Respondent No. 1.

                Mr. Somnath Karpe with Mr. Anand Shirodkar, Advocates for
                Respondent No. 2.

                                    CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES &
                                           AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
                                   DATED : 6TH OCTOBER, 2026


                P.C.:

                1.      On the last date of hearing i.e. on 23.09.2026, this Court
                recorded a statement made by the learned Advocate appearing
                for the Mormugao Port Authority (MPA) in the following
                terms:


                                              Page 1 of 3
                                           6th October, 2026
                                 (34) WP 873.2026




           “2. On instruction, Shri Girish Sardessai, appearing
           for the Chairman, Mormugao Port Authority, has
           made a statement that there are 10 sanctioned posts
           of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), at present, of
           which 1/3rd, i.e. 3 posts out of 10, would be filled by
           promotion. He makes a further statement that, as per
           the decision of the Board, it has been resolved to fill
           up 1/3rd out of the said 10 posts, i.e. three posts, by
           promotion and the remaining 7 posts, constituting
           2/3rd, by direct recruitment.
            3. He further submits that since the Petitioners are
            next in line for promotion, they would be eligible for
            promotion to the 3 posts of Assistant Executive
            Engineer (Civil) reserved and to be filled by
            promotion.”

2.    The matter was then adjourned for the learned Advocate
for the Petitioners to take instructions as to whether the petition
could be disposed of on considering the statement made by the
learned Advocate for the MPA. The learned Advocate for the
Petitioners, on instructions, submits that the petition can now
be disposed of on the statement made by the learned Advocate
for the MPA.

3.    Considering that the relief sought in prayer Clause (b),
wherein the Petitioner has sought a direction to the MPA to fill
up three posts of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) by
promotion from the feeder posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil),
which they presently hold. We accept this statement made by
the Counsel on behalf of the MPA to the effect that since the
Petitioners are next in line for promotion and are eligible for
promotion to the three posts of Assistant Executive Engineer
(Civil), these posts would be filled up by promotion from
                                 Page 2 of 3
                              6th October, 2026
                           (34) WP 873.2026




amongst the Petitioners. Accepting this statement, the petition
stands disposed of in terms of the statement made by the MPA
above.



AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.                  VALMIKI MENEZES, J.




                            Page 3 of 3
                         6th October, 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…