IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

(CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION)

ORIGINAL SIDE

Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee

WPO 380 of 2024

With

IA No. GA 1 of 2024

Soumik Bhattacharya & Ors.

Vs.

The Hon’ble High Court At Calcutta & Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya,

Mr. Neil Basu.

For the Respondent : Mr. Jaydip Kar, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty.

Heard on : 17.07.2025

Judgment on : 07.08.2025

Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.:-

Preface:

1. Three employees of this Hon’ble Court have instituted the present writ

petition, praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ, more particularly in

the nature of mandamus, directing the concerned respondents to determine their inter se seniority in the cadre of Superintendent Grade-II, with retrospective effect from 30.07.2018 (forenoon). Consequent thereto, they also pray for promotion to the next higher post, namely that of Assistant Court Officer (for short, ACO), being the last common cadre, on the strength of such revised seniority. The petitioners further beseech this Hon’ble Court to direct the re-fixation of their pay and the disbursement of consequential arrears of emoluments accruing from the such re-determination and promotional benefits.

Petitioners’ case:

2. Before delving into the contours of the controversy hovering around the present writ petition, it would be appropriate to first advert to the essential facts, as set out in the writ petition, which led to its institution. Those essential facts are as follows:

i) The petitioners commenced their service career as Lower Division Assistants (for short, LDA) in the Appellate Side Establishment of this Hon’ble Court on 10.12.2001 (forenoon).

ii) In accordance with Rules 3(2) and 6(1) of the Calcutta High Court Service (Appellate Side) Categorisation of Posts, Channels of Promotion and Principles of Seniority Rules, 1986 (for short, the 1986 Rules), petitioner no. 1 is senior to the other two petitioners, and petitioner no. 2 is senior to petitioner no. 3.

iii) Subsequently, in terms of Rules 4 and 5(1) of the 1986 Rules, the petitioners were promoted to the posts of Upper Division Assistant (in short, UDA) in September 2007, January

2008, and 2009, respectively.

iv) On 10.05.2018, the Joint Registrar (General Administration), Appellate Side, issued a notice inviting applications from eligible and interested candidates for 2 (two) vacant posts of Superintendent in the Protocol Department and 1 (one) vacant post of Superintendent at the High Court Judges’ Guest House, Bijan Bhawan, Salt Lake, Kolkata, all in the category of Superintendent Grade-II.

v) The notice dated 10.05.2018 stipulated that employees in the UDA category, irrespective of gender or place of residence, possessing a minimum of 10 years of service experience (inclusive of their tenure as LDA and UDA), were eligible to apply for the said posts. It further contained a stipulation that any applicant not residing in Kolkata or Howrah town would be required to furnish an undertaking to the effect that he would make suitable residential arrangements within Kolkata or Howrah town prior to assuming the post. The notice further instructed the applicants to acquaint themselves with the High Court’s Notifications bearing Nos. 2679A-G.S. dated 19.04.2000 and 3151-G.S. dated 09.05.2000.

vi) The petitioners contend that the notice did not specify that applicants who might be selected would be barred from asserting their inter se seniority in the category of Superintendent Grade-II, nor did it indicate that the provisions of Rules 6(2)(a) and 6(2)(c) of the 1986 Rules would be inapplicable to them. On the contrary, the petitioners assert that Rule 7(iii) would primarily govern the determination of their inter se seniority in the said category.

vii) A notice dated 05.07.2018, issued by the Deputy Registrar (Administration), indicated that the selection process would comprise a Written Test carrying 30 marks, a Viva Voce of 10 marks, and an Assessm