Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUBRATA TALUKDAR, LAPITA BANERJI, JJ.
Sk. Samual Hossen & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
MAT 498 of 2021 With IA No. CAN 1 of 2021
Decided on : 22-06-2023
PROMOTION - GROUP-D TO GROUP-C POSTS - NOTIFICATION - ELIGIBILITY - GRADATION LIST - OBJECTION - REPRESENTATION - CONSIDERATION - FINALISATION - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - DELAY - LACHES - RELIEF - FUTURE PROMOTION EXERCISE - PARTICIPATION - RIGHT - PRESERVATION.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants, Group-D employees of City Civil and Sessions Court, Calcutta, challenged the non-consideration for promotion to Group-C posts. They alleged incorrect placement in the Draft Gradation List and non-compliance with the recruitment policy for Group-C posts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants failed to demonstrate a clear case for grant of relief at this stage. They did not raise objections to the Draft Gradation List from 2014 to 2017 and did not challenge the reasoned orders passed by the Judgeship in connection therewith. The court, however, clarified that the appellants' rights to ventilate their stand qua any recast of the Gradation List in the future and to participate in any future promotional exercise in accordance with law would not be prejudiced.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants were eligible for promotion to Group-C posts as per the Notification of September 2014? 2. Whether the appellants were correctly placed in the Draft Gradation List? 3. Whether the Judgeship followed the recruitment policy for Group-C posts? 4. Whether the appellants' writ petition was maintainable considering their delay and laches in raising objections?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appellants became eligible for promotion only in November 2014, retrospectively from August 2014, after the Notification of September 2014 had already been acted upon. 2. The appellants failed to raise any substantive objections to the Draft Gradation List from 2014 to 2017. 3. The Judgeship considered the appellants' objections to the Draft Gradation List and passed reasoned orders, which were not challenged by the appellants. 4. The appellants sat over their rights and resorted to technicalities, such as non-grant of 30 days for raising objections, which were not sustainable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal. The order impugned of the Hon'ble Single Bench called for no interference. However, the appellants' rights to ventilate their stand qua any recast of the Gradation List in the future and to participate in any future promotional exercise in accordance with law would not be prejudiced.
JUDGMENT :
Subrata Talukdar, J.
1. Under challenge in this appeal is the final order dated 18th March, 2021 in the Writ Petition being WPA 21787 of 2018, passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench dismissing the writ petition.
2. The writ petitioners are the appellants before this Court. The Respondents are the State of West Bengal and the High Court Administration (for short, referred to only as the High Court), who are also the respondents to the writ petition. The writ petitioners/the present appellants hold Group-D Posts in the City Civil and Sessions Court, Calcutta. The writ petitioners are aggrieved by their non-consideration for promotion to Group-C Posts. The prayers made in the writ petition are as follows:-
B) Let a rule do issue out of and under the deal of this Hon’ble Court asking the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a writ of or a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not go commanding the respondents to recast the draft gradation list prepared on 1.1.2016 and 1.1.2017 in terms of contention raised by the petitioners and to act in accordance with law.
C) Let a rule do issue out of and under the seal of this Hon’ble Court asking the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a writ of or a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not go commanding the respondents to fill up the posts to be filled up by promotion for Lower Division Assistant and Process Server from amongst petitioners and on the basis of vacancies which are earmarked in terms of recommendation of Shetty Commission and to act in accordance with law.
D) Let a rule do issue out of and under the seal of this Hon’ble Court asking the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a writ of or a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not go commanding the respondents not to supersede the case of petitioners who are entitled to promotion on and form 1.8.2015 and to act in accordance with law.
E) Let a rule do issue out of and under the seal of this Hon’ble Court asking the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a writ of or a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not go commanding the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners dated 25.6.2018 on the basis of points raised in representation and thereafter to take a decision and communicate the decision to the petitioners by taking consequential steps for grant of promotion to the petitioners on and from 1.8.2015 and to act in accordance with law.
F) Let a rule do issue out of and under the seal of this Hon’ble Court asking the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a writ of or a writ in the nature of Certiorari should not go commanding the respondents there by to certify and transmit all relevant records of this case pertaining to the case of the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court so that conscionable justice may therein be administered. G) An interim order be issued restraining the respondents from filling up the post of Lower Division Assistant and Process Server superseding the case of petitioners until disposal of writ application.
H) An order of injunction be issued restraining the respondents from giving effect and/or any further effect to the draft gradation list as on 1.1.2016 and 1.1.2017 to various posts of Lower Division Assistant and Process Server superseding the case of petitioners until disposal of writ application.
I) Rules in terms of prayers (A) to (F) above be issued.
J) Interim Order in t
Employees who fail to raise timely and substantive objections to the Draft Gradation List and do not challenge the reasoned orders passed by the employer in connection therewith cannot seek relief at....
Point of Law : Interest of justice would be served and equities would be balanced if cases of the petitioners in these two writ petitions are directed to be considered for their promotion to the next....
Challenges to promotions must be timely; belated claims may be dismissed, especially when subsequent promotions render seniority disputes moot.
The court emphasized that challenges to promotions must be timely and adhere to established rules, with a focus on legality and procedural correctness.
The court emphasized the significance of considering the service in the supernumerary post as part of the sanctioned strength of the post of AE(C) and highlighted the principles of seniority calculat....
In service matters, persons likely to be affected by the judgment should be added as necessary/proper parties to safeguard their interests.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
