Non-compliance with court orders in promotion matters constitutes discrimination against eligible candidates, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

S. Talapatra, J. - Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The grievance of the petitioner can be sourced at the judgment and order dated 21.08.2018 delivered in Rev. Pet. No. 38 of 2018. In the said judgment, this court had occasion to observe that the respondents [the official respondents in the present petition] shall within a period of three months from the date of receiving the order constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee [DPC] and consider the eligible Assistant Demonstrators (seri) having minimum ten years of service with the certificate course of training in Sericulture for promotion to the post of Sericulture Development Officer (SDO). The respondents shall promote those persons who will be found suitable for such promotion by the DPC. It is made clear that any deviation from this order shall be dealt sternly by this court. The DPC shall also consider whether the petitioner can be promoted from the date when they became eligible for consideration for promotion.

3. Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that when the said direction was not complied, the petitioner of that review petition had initiated a contempt proceeding being Cont. Cas(C) No. 46 of 2019. While responding to the allegation of wilful disobedience, the respondents had categorically stated in their reply filed on 03.08.2019 that the steps were taken for implementation of the said judgment and order and the time lines had been laid down. The schedule for convening the DPC was laid out. It had been also asserted that in pursuance to the order of this court, the DPC met on 18.02.2019 and recommended the suitable/eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Sericulture Development Officer against the vacancy as available, subject to 100 point roster [after verification] under promotion quota. As per the recommendation of the DPC, the action was initiated for approval of the competent authority and the views of the Law Department. The Law Department had suggested that the promotion orders might be issued, based on the recommendation of the DPC only after the vacation of the status quo order passed by the apex court in the matters of promotion in SLP(C) No. 019762/2015 and SLP(C) No. 019765 019767/2015 or the civil appeals pending therefrom or the challenge is decided.

4. While acting on the said observation, the official respondents faced another contempt proceeding, wherein the Chief Secretary had filed one personal affidavit and stated that the State Government is willing to implement the order of the Hon'ble High Court fully. But it has come to the notice of the government that the recommendation of the DPC is not in conformity with the order and judgment dated 09.04.2015 as delivered in WP(C) No. 189 of 2011, WP(C) No. 124 of 2012 and WP(C) No. 109 of 2011. In para-21 of the affidavit filed by Sri Manoj Kumar, the Chief Secretary, on 19.11.2020 it has been categorically stated that the Administrative Department has proposed that as an interim arrangement to comply with the Court's Orders, the candidate upto 9th seniority position as recommended by DPC, which would include both the petitioners of that writ petition, Sri Debabrata Acharjee & Sri Ajit Patari may be considered for promotion immediately. Thus, Sri Dilip Murasingh, Smt. Manna Deb, Sri Debasish Debnath, Sri Debabrata Acharjee and Sri Ajit Patary all working in the post of Assistant Demonstrator, Sericulture may be promoted to the post of Sericulture Development Officer. It was also proposed that Sri Dilip Mu