IMPORTANT POINT
The right to be considered for promotion is protected under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, and the filling up of the promotional post is within the domain of the employer.

JUDGMENT :

The Court: The instant writ petition is taken out by the applicants challenging an order dated 20th February 2019 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in OA 1532 of 2013 whereby and whereunder a direction was passed upon the Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal, to consider the applicants for promotion when the vacancies in the promotional posts will be filled up provided they are otherwise found suitable for promotion.

2. Nine persons including the petitioners filed a tribunal application seeking an order upon the respondent authorities to revoke, set aside and quash the notification dated 15th June 2012 issued by the Government of West Bengal blocking the promotional avenues of the eligible persons and to give the promotional benefits with retrospective effect in terms of the notification dated 31st December 1992.

3. The facts, which emanate from the pleadings, are that the petitioners at the relevant point of time when the tribunal was moved were holding the post of Assistant Evaluation Officer under the West Bengal Junior Agricultural Services (Evaluation) cadre. It is further contended that at the relevant point of time when the petitioners became eligible for promotion in terms of the notification dated 31st December 1992, several requests were made to initiate a proceeding for filling up the promotional posts. The said notification provides two channels of promotion to the promotional posts; firstly, half of the posts shall be filled up through a direct recruitment process and the remaining half by promotion from the confirmed officers in the West Bengal Junior Agricultural Services (Evaluation) having at least three years experience in the said post.

4. Subsequently, by a notification dated 15th June 2012, an amendment was brought by putting the conditions relating to the requisite qualification at par with the direct recruitment, which, according to the petitioners, blocked the avenues of the promotion. By filing a supplementary affidavit, the petitioners relied upon a memo being no. 477 dated 25th May 2011 in support of their contention that the process for filing up the posts was started, but, subsequently, could not be proceeded further because of the amendment having brought in the year 2012.

5. Several applicants approached the Tribunal with the tribunal application challenging the said notification dated 15th June 2012 and an interim order was passed staying operation of the said notification until further order. During pendency of the said application the aforesaid eligibility criteria, which, according to the petitioners blocked the avenues of the promotion, was further amended by a notification dated 18th August 2017. By such notification, the stringent eligibility criteria were relaxed and the position was restored ante in terms of the notification dated 31st December 1992.

6. So far as the present petitioners are concerned, they attained superannuation before the impugned order was passed and the instant writ petition is filed seeking a relief by issuing a Mandamus upon the respondent authorities to grant a notional promotion from the retrospective date of their eligibility and the monitory relief that may be admissible to such promotional posts.

7. It is argued by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the Tribunal while disposing of the tribunal application did not consider that the petitioners attained superannuation and, therefore, direction upon the concerned authority to consider the applicants therein for promotion when the vacancy in the promotional posts will be filled up has virtually denied the reliefs actually sought for. It is contended that the Rule, which was prevalent at the time when the promotional posts fell vacant, shall apply to fill up the promotional posts and under the subsequent amendment brought putting a stringent condition was revoked/withdrawn and, therefore, the order impugned needs interference so far