JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. I.A. No.4966 of 2025 seeks condonation of delay of 101 days in instituting this appeal.

3. The reasons set out in the aforesaid I.A., in the peculiar facts of the present case, constitute sufficient cause. The delay is also not inordinate. Accordingly, we condone the delay and dispose of this I.A.

4. With the consent and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up the appeal for consideration.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants-State submitted that, in this matter, through a public advertisement, the officers were called upon to produce documents such as vigilance clearance, list of assets, etc., based on which their cases could be considered for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer (Civil).

6. The Learned counsel for the appellants submits that, despite such notice by advertisement, since no such documents were produced by the original petitioners (respondents nos.1 to 6 herein), their cases could not be considered for promotion. The Learned counsel for the appellants also relied on the decision in the case of Government of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Dr Amal Satpathi and Ors., (2024) SCC Online SC 3512 to submit that the grant of any retrospective promotion would not be proper. He submitted that promotion can be effective only from the date on which it is granted.

7. The Learned counsel for the respondents (original petitioners), however, submitted that there was no communication to the petitioners to submit any documents. He pointed out that a letter was addressed to the departmental head, but it was never communicated to the petitioners. Without prejudice, he submitted that most of the documents were already furnished, and documents like vigilance clearance, etc., had to be furnished by the concerned department of the appellants themselves. He submitted that there is no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order and, therefore, this appeal may be dismissed.

8. We have considered the rival contentions, and we are satisfied that no case is made out to admit this appeal. The reasons for this conclusion are set out briefly hereafter.

9. This is admittedly not a case where the original petitioners were ineligible for promotion for lack of any qualifications, experience, etc.

10. By a letter dated 29^th August, 2022, issued by the Joint Secretary to the departmental head, the departmental head was required to call upon the original petitioners and other employees to furnish certain details/documents regarding their service history, character report, list of assets, etc. The record shows that this letter, dated 29^th August, 2022 or the request contained therein, was never communicated to the original petitioners. There is a finding of fact to this effect in paragraph no.10 of the learned Single Judge’s impugned order. Even the pleadings to this effect were never denied by the appellants in their counter-affidavit.

11. Insofar as the public advertisement is concerned, the learned Single Judge has referred to the principles under Order V Rule 20 of the CPC and ruled that substituted service through paper publication cannot be resorted to in the very first instance and that too, by a department against its own employees working in the department. Even the principle of fairness required the respondents to be given an adequate opportunity to produce documents/information in their possession, assuming that such documents/information were a necessary precondition for their consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil).

12. Ultimately, it was found that the original petitioners were not only eligible but also fulfilled the standards necessary for promotion even after the furnishing of the details/information. Thus, for hyper-technical considerations, for which the original petitioners were really not to be blamed, they were denied their right to be considered for promotion. It was in th