has observed in para 13 that the date mentioned by the Under Secretary (Health) was in correct. I find that the same by itself cannot tantamount to case being made out for any conspiracy or an intentional manipulation. At any rate, the date of appointment of Dr. Dalvi and the date of appointment and regularisation of the petitioner has significance and relevance only with regard to the inter-se seniority of Dr. Dalvi and the petitioner. As noticed earlier, the petitioner had challenged the fact of Dr. Dalvi being showed senior, in Writ Petition No. 364/2012, inter-alia on the ground of a conspiracy being hatched and a manipulation being done in the matter of putting up of the office note by the Under Secretary (Health). That petition has been dismissed. It is true that the petition is dismissed mainly on the ground of laches, however, in para 13 of the said judgment, the Division Bench has referred to Rule 6 of the Goa Government (Seniority) Rules, 1967 in order to hold that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) had placed Dr. Dalvi above the petitioner in the seniority in the year 2005. In any event, in my considered view, the dispute is predominantly of a civil nature and a service dispute and I do not find that the impugned order, dismissing the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. suffers from any infirmity, so as to require interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
