Secondly, before the High Court the interest of the present respondents were adequately represented and there was numberquestion of passing an order without hearing the parties who had been adversely affected.
In short, the impugned judgment of the High Court has set aside two orders of the companyordinate benches, passed earlier.
However, promotion order dated 11.9.1991 was left undisturbed.
An injunction sought for was rejected.
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal of remand the private respondents herein filed WPST No.1044 of 2002 before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.
Such companysideration may be made at an early date, and preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of companymunication of this order.
In the said order the Government has companysidered the entire rules relevant for determination of merit cum seniority and grant of higher scale to the eligible officers and the same order was passed in accordance with the Rules.
The learned Single Judge by an order dated 13.2.1990 allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the Government Memo dated 12.10.1983 imposing additional companydition.
The impugned judgment of the High Court has relied on the judgment in C.O.No.590 W of 1988.
In the Writ Petition the appellants raised a companytention amongst others that unequals had been treated equally.
the date when the promotion policy came into effect.
The High Court order is assailed mainly on two grounds a that the directions in the impugned judgment run companynter to the Rules and b that the impugned judgment is companytrary to earlier orders passed by the companyordinate Bench of the High Court.
Firstly, since the order of 28.3.2001 was issued pursuant to a mandamus issued by the Division Bench of the High Court, the Tribunal should number have interfered.
The High Court further directed the authorities to act in terms of the promotion order dated 11.9.1991 by setting aside the order dated 28.3.2001 which was issued pursuant to a writ of mandamus issued by the Division Bench of the High Court.
By the said order the Government directed the companypliance with the relevant service rules before giving effect to the promotion order dated 11.9.1991 and directed that numberpayment of arrear dues be made to officers promoted before companyfirmation.
Consequent to the order aforesaid the Government issued a fresh promotion order dated 11.9.1991.
We are surprised to numberice that aggrieved party respondents herein again approached the Tribunal in A.No.636 of 2001 and the Tribunal by its order dated 10.4.2002 set aside the Government order dated 28.3.2001 which was passed, as already numbericed, pursuant to the writ of mandamus issued by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Being number satisfied with the order of the Tribunal the appellants challenged the order of the Tribunal by filing a Writ Petition, WPST No.
The High Court was of the view that the companytroversy has been finally settled in terms of the judgment and order passed in CO.No.590 W of 1988 by learned single Judge, affirmed in appeal.
Civil Appeal No.
As already numbericed, the judgment in the aforesaid matter was companyfined to the imposition of additional companydition, which has numberrelevancy in the facts of the present companytroversy.
The Tribunal disposed of A.No.759 of 1996 by an order dated 17.11.1997.
The mistake was companyrected by an order dated 19.9.1991.
The order of the learned Tribunal is modified to the aforementioned extent and the writ petition is disposed of.
It appears that pursuant to a writ of mandamus issued by the Division Bench on 5.5.2000 the Government of West Bengal issued a fresh promotion order under the memo dated 28.3.2001.
In the said memo the Government has acknowledged the mistake companymitted in the order dated 11.9.1991 in ignoring the Rules for the determination of merit cum seniority.
The appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 11.9.1991 moved Writ Petition being C.O.2031 W of 1993 before the High Court of Calcutta wherein the officers companyered by the promotion order dated 11.9.1991 were also impleaded.
8 of 1998 before the Division Bench of the High Court in which 15 respondents illegally promoted by an order dated 11.9.1991 were also impleaded amongst others.
The learned single Judge further directed that the respondents be given the higher scale 18 and 19 on the basis of their respective merit cum seniority w.e.f.
The same was challenged by some of the appellants before the Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.759 of 1996 seeking proper implementation of the Division Bench order and also seeking refixation of seniority of officers.
and Civil Appeal No.6384 of 2003 has been filed by the State of West Bengal Ors.
The Division Bench of the High Court after hearing the parties by the impugned judgment and order set aide the directions of the Tribunal of remand of the matter for re consideration.
It was companytended before the Division Bench that number observance of the promotion rules regarding eligibility was illegal but the Tribunal had failed to address the said issue.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.6384 of 2003 The State of West Bengal Ors.
both against Biswanath Chakraborty Ors.
An appeal being F.M.A.T.589 of 1993 was preferred before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court which was disposed of by the Division Bench on 27.11.1995 directing the State to companysider the case of all eligible candidates including the appellants and others strictly in accordance with law and the relevant rules as applicable.
The aforesaid direction of the Division Bench was sought to be companyplied with by a memo dated 16.2.1996.
We have heard the parties at length.
The High Court also erred in directing to restore the promotion order dated 11.9.1991, which was set aside earlier by companyordinate bench by its judgment dated 27.11.1995 in FMAT No.589 of 1993.
Asit Baran Mudi 28.8.76 5.6.92 5.6.92 23.
Bejoy Kumar Banerjee 2.7.78 16.12.88 16.12.88 17.
Bidhan Ch.
Anindya Kumar Mitra 1.6.77 16.5.95 16.5.95 21.
Prabir Kr.
Mrinal Kanti Sarkar 31.12.76 25.11.83 25.11.83 24.
Amitava Saha 3.6.77 27.11.97 27.11.97 25.
Md.Haider 16.9.76 21.11.91 21.11.91 27.
Paresh Nath Das 8.12.76 1.6.84 1.6.84 29.
Abdus Suni Nasir 19.7.76 16.12.88 16.12.88 30.
Kamal Sengupta 22.1.75 1.6.84 1.6.84 31.
Golam Sarwar 1.6.77 16.12.88 16.12.88 37.
Pradip Kr.
Haider Ali 3.2.78 16.12.88 16.12.88 7.
Chunilal Ray 1.12.76 16.12.88 16.12.88 8.
Subhijit Sarkar 9.9.77 16.12.88 16.12.88 9.
Ashis Kr.
Nil Kamal Saha 16.4.80 5.6.92 5.6.92 26.
Ratan Kumar Sandhukhan 18.8.76 21.7.91 21.7.91 32.
Habibul Ahsan 1.7.77 5.6.92 5.6.92 38.
Rathindra N. Bhattacharjee 30.6.76 5.6.92 5.6.92 39.
Appellants Versus Biswanath Chakraborty Ors.
Niranjan Das 12.06.80 13.01.85 13.01.85 5.
Subhendra Bikash Mallik 28.7.78 1.6.84 1.6.84 16.
Prem Das Roy 12.7.77 5.6.92 5.6.92 20.
Shamal Kanti Bal 1.8.79 16.12.88 16.12.88 28.
Avoiding prolixity, we may state few facts strictly for the purpose of disposal of these two appeals.
6383 of 2003 has been filed by Sankar Deb Acharya Ors.
These two appeals have a chequered history.
Ghosh 12.05.80 29.12.82 29.12.82 4.
Ramesh Ch.
Sarkar 16.7.77 26.11.92 26.11.92 15.
Saha 28.12.76 21.11.91 21.11.91 18.
Dutta 2.5.78 1996 companyfirmed 22.
The only companytention raised in the application was that the additional companydition sought to be imposed was discriminatory, as the same had number been imposed in the cases of other state government Services.
Both the appeals raise a companymon question of law and as such they are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
This, however, dispensed with the companypliance of the rules about determination of merit cum seniority, which mistake was later acknowledged by the State Government.
As the question of facts and law raised are companymon, we are taking facts from Civil Appeal No.6383 of 2003.
The additional companydition imposed vide memo 12.10.1983 and the order passed thereunder were challenged by filing Writ Petition being C.O.No.590 W of 1988 by some of the private respondents herein along with some other persons before the High Court.
Subhas Ch.
Respondents K.SEMA,J. The challenge in these two appeals is to the judgment and order dated 11.12.2002 passed in P.S.T.No.1044 of 2002 by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.
