Promotion processes must adhere to established guidelines, ensuring fair consideration for all eligible candidates. Clubbing of vacancies across years violates process integrity, and resultant promotions may be challenged if procedural norms are not followed.

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

1. Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the Writ Appeals. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Standing Counsel, Rubber Board appearing for respondent Nos. 2-4 and Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.

2. These two intra Court Appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 23.03.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of Writ Petitions, whereby the writ petitions of the appellant Smti. Rashmi Rekha Majumder have been dismissed and partly allowed the writ petition of appellant Sri Prasanta Barua. Writ Appeal No. 250/2021 is preferred by Smti. Rashmi Rekha Majumder (Writ Petitioner in WP (C) No. 7777/2016, WP (C) No. 3717/2016 & WP (C) No. 6901/2014). Writ Appeal No. 337/2021 is preferred by Sri Prasanta Barua (Writ Petitioner in WP (C) No. 5815/2014), being partially aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 23.03.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge. As both the Appeals are preferred against the common judgment and order and are analogous, same are being dispose of by this common judgment.

3. The factual background leading to filing of the present case, in brief, may be narrated as under:

The appellants/writ petitioners were appointed as Junior Field officer (in short ‘JFO’) and subsequently to the post of Field officer (in short ‘ FO’) and they have become eligible for promotion to the next higher grade of Assistant Development Officer (in short ‘ADO’) and were accordingly promoted to ADO. The private respondents and others who were junior to the appellant/writ petitioner-Smti. Rashmi Rekha Majumder, were promoted and en-bloc placed above the appellant/writ petitioner. It is projected that the appellants/writ petitioners were deprived of being considered for promotion to the post of Development Officer (in short ‘DO’) from the post of ADO. It is projected that the respondent No. 1, published the Gradation List of employees as on 31.03.1994 and thereafter on 31.12.1998. Thereafter, the Gradation List of the employees was published on 31.12.2006. It is contended that in between 31.12.1998 and 31.12.2006, no Gradation List was published. The grievance of the appellants/writ petitioners is that the respondent authorities did not convene any Departmental Promotion Committee (in short DPC) meeting from June, 2006 to November, 2009 and during this period, twenty six vacancies arose in the rank of ADO. It is projected that in the year 2012 total six vacancies of DO were fixed. In the year 2013, twelve vacancies in total were there. The grievance of the appellants/writ petitioners is that according to the relevant circular of the Department of Personnel and Training (in short ‘the DoPT’) bearing O.M. No. F.22011/5/86-Estt.D, dated 10th March, 1989, the DPC is required to consider year wise vacancy position. However, the DPC had considered vacancies which arose in 2012, 2013 and 2014 and thereby the zone of consideration was extended and larger number of reserved category candidates, who were junior to the appellants/writ petitioners were considered for promotion. It is contended that the six vacancies for the