JUDGMENT :

JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.

1. Writ petitioners were appointed as Panchayat Secretaries (PSs) and have been working in such capacity since 1995. In view of the 73rd constitutional amendment and for better co-ordination in implementation of various schemes in the Panchayat area and other local bodies, the Departments of Panchayat and that of Rural Development of Andaman and Nicobar Administration were amalgamated.

2. At the time of amalgamation, a proposal was made to create promotional avenue for PSs to the post of Office Superintendent which is on par with Block Development Officers (BDOs)/Joint Block Development Officers and thereafter to the amalgamated cadre of Assistant Secretary. The proposal was not accepted primarily on the ground that the PSs had been appointed only between 1995 and 2001 and had hardly completed seven years while the staff of the feeder cadre who were eligible for promotion to Office Superintendent had completed 35 years and were still awaiting for promotion. Hence, the issue of amalgamating the cadre of PSs in the amalgamated cadre was not acted upon and Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPs) by way of two financial upgradation upon completion of 12/24 years was extended to PSs. It was proposed their avenue for future promotion may be considered after completion of the aforementioned period.

3. Petitioners as well as their association repeatedly approached the respondent authorities, inter alia, praying for merger of the cadre of PSs with Extension Officers (EOs) and to be considered for promotion to the post of BDO. Representations were remained unheeded to and the respondent authorities proceeded to fill up three posts in the BDO cadre through promotion from the feeder post i.e. Extension Officers as per the recruitment rules.

4. This prompted the petitioners to approach the Tribunal in O.A.No.351/1389/2023/AN with MA/351/986/2023/AN. The Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioners expeditiously. As the respondents proceeded with the appointment to the post of BDO by way of promotion from EOs, petitioners approached the Tribunal again for an interim order in OA/351/01627/2023/AN. The Tribunal having denied the relief, petitioners approached the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP.CT/82/2023 and the said Bench directed the Tribunal to consider the issue of interim order at the earliest. Thereafter, the Tribunal directed maintenance of status quo and proceeded to hear the matter on merits. In the meantime, on 22.02.2024, the respondent authorities dismissed the representation of the petitioners which was challenged in the aforesaid OA. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 26.06.2024 reiterated the decision of the respondent authorities which is challenged before us.

5. Mr. Samanta submits the Tribunal as well as the respondent authority had failed to consider the hub of the grievance of the writ petitioners. Since 1995 the writ petitioners are working as PSs and do not have any avenue of promotion. Relying on Dr. O.Z. Hussain Vs. Union of India, 1990 (Supp)SCC 688 he submits promotion is a normal incidence of service and there is no justification on the part of the respondent authority to consider his clients for promotion to the post of BDO when EOs who are discharging similar duties are entitled to be considered for promotion to the said post. He also relied on various DoPT Memoranda which state there ought to be regular cadre review so that isolated posts are merged and avenues of promotion be created for all employees.

6. In reply, Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty for the respondents authorities and Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar for private respondents i.e. EOs submits PSs and EOs are completely separate cadres, their area of operation, nature of work are wholly different while PSs fall in the ministerial cadre, EOs belong to the Non-Ministerial cadre. Even the proposal exploring avenues of promotion to the PSs was to the post of