ANIMESH HALDER Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an employee of the Calcutta Metropolitan development Authority, has assailed in the instant Writ application, the impugned orders being no. 405/cmda/2e48/, 81 dated February 24, 1981, Order No. 397/cmda/2e-41/81 dated February 24, 1981 issued by the respondent no. 3 promoting the respondents nos. 6 and 7 to the posts of Deputy Director (Area flanging and Development Control) and respondent no. 9 to the post of Deputy director (Trans poration) in violation of all norms of promotion set by the Authority as well as the advertisement published in Amrita Bazar Patrika dated March 7, 1982 inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Director and Deputy Director (Socio Economic Planning, Appraisal, Monitoring and evaluation) annexed as Annexures 'e', 'h' and 'g' respectively to the Writ petition on the ground that the petitioner though the Senior most Urban Economist in the C. M. D. A. was denied arbitrarily promotion to the next higher post of Deputy Director of Planning (Area Planning and Development Control) as well as to , the post of Deputy Director of Planning (Socio Economic Planning Appraisal, monitoring and Evaluation) though he was holding the feeder post of Special officer, Small Enterprise Programme and he was appointed and worked as special Officer in economic and social support programme cell from its very inception and thus he has been arbitrarily discriminated upon by the authorities concerned.

(2.) THE salient facts of the case in brief are as follows : the petitioner who is an M. A. in economics from Calcutta University and a Ph. D. of the University of Wales, i U. K. was appointed against a permanent vacancy as an Urban Economist under the C. M. D. A. on the 6th of January, 1975 on being duly selected by the Selection committee. The petitioner was confirmed in the said post by Order dated march 13, 1980 being Order no. 555/ cmda/2e-66/79 with effect from January 6, 1977. After he assumed his duties as an Urban Economist the authority concerned by Order dated November 3rd|4th, 1976 constituted a Cell in the name of Economic and Social Support programme Cell (hereinafter referred to as ESSP Cell) within the Planning directorate and the petitioner was appointed as officer- in- Charge of the. said cell, by Order No. 30-77 (67 dated July 22, 1977 by the Director General of planning and Directorate CM. D. A. the respondent no. 5. It has been stated that the duties and- responsibilities of the officer-in- Charge of ESSP Cell are identical with those of the Deputy Director of Planning of other streams of the said Directorate The petitioner however, was not provided with any extra financial benefits for. the additional responsibility and work attached to. the said post. After some time the post of. Deputy Director (Economic Planning)was created by the authorities and the same was lying vacant. The petitioner made a representation to the authority; concerned to elevate him to the said post of Deputy Director of Planning and his representation was duly forwarded by the respondent no. ,5 on May 22, 1978 with a note being U. O. No. 810 (PL)dated May 25, 1978, inter alia to the following effect : "i forward herewith a memorandum from. Dr. A. Haider, Urban economist, Directorate of Planning, cmda which will speak for itself. It is true that Dr. A Haider is shouldering greater responsibility compared to other Urban Economists. It may also be pointed out, in this connection, that a post of Deputy director (Economic Planning) is lying vacant for quite sometime; It is necessary to fill up the post for effecting desired coordination and supervision in our economic planning aspects particularly in view of our involvement in the programme for Small Scale Enterprise. " inspite of this recommendation by the respondent no. 5 he was hot considered for promotion to the said post

(3.) THE petitioner made another representation to the authority concerned for consideration 61 his case on merits for promotion to the said post of Deputy Director it has been further stated that the credible performance of additional duties by the petitioner as Officer -in- charge of the ESSP Cell, can be evident from the office note of the Director of Planning vide U. O. No. 163 (PL)dated '20. 7. 78 and a note of the then Deputy Secretary of the C. M. D. A. dated october 5, 1976 (vide File No. PL 2j56 note Sheet Page No. 24-25 ). It has been further stated that in order to minimise the importance of the Cell and to cripple its activities the respondent no. 5 withdrew gradually the necessary support like manpower, vehicle etc from the Cell and to denigrate his position as Officer- in- Charge of the Cell and more particularly as Officer-in- Charge of the Small Scale Enterprise. Programme. It has also been submitted that inspite of giving over all responsibilities of the Socio Economic Planning and allied tasks to the petitioner, who is the senior most amongst the Urban Economists working in the C. M. D. A. and the only Economist holding Doctorate Degree, one Dr. S. B. Mukherjee, an outsider, who was going to retire on superannuation was appointed as an Economic Adviser and thereby prejudicially affecting the interest of the petitioner it has been further stated that the petitioner while working as an Officer-in- Charge of the SSP Cell, Organised and developed an economic development programme known as Small Scale Enterprise programme (hereinafter referred to as SSE Programme ). The said programme was exclusively run under the supervision and control of the petitioner since the inception of the said programme i. e. from W6. The authorities concerned with an ulterior motive arbitrarily and in colourable exercise of their executive fiat withdrew the Said programme from the supervision and control of the petitioner on the plea that the expertised knowledge of the petitioner would be more effectively utilised in the Social and Economic Planning Field and Project Appraisal Unit. The, service rendered, by the petitioner for developing the said SSE Programme was well appreciated by the then Officer-in- Charge on special duty and Chief executive Officer, C. M. D. A. It has been stated that the petitioner is the only legitimate claimant to the post of Deputy; director (Area Planning and Development, Control) as he was holding the absolute charge of the SSE Programme (Feeder Post) according to the recommendation of the Service Committee as approved by the 63rd meeting of the c. M. D. A. It has been further stated that to i deprive him from his legitimate claim fee promotion to the said post of Deputy Director, the feeder post of which the petitioner was holding,. the and parity concerned arbitrarily took away the responsibility of the said programme from the petitioner for a collateral purpose, on the so called plea that the petitioner s expertised knowledge will be better utilised in the Socio economic planning, Project, Appraisal and Evolution work under C. M. D. A. and the responsibility of the said programme was assigned to a W. B. C. S. Officer as addition charge, by Order No. 3064/cmda/ 2e-31/79 dated December 17, 1980. it has been stated that the work of the essp Cell is synonymous with that Of the work of SSE Programme which will be evident from the order of the Director of Planning dated March 19, 1979. annexed as Annexure 'd' to the writ application. The authority concerned in order to victimise the petitioner somehow or other denied him promotion to the said post of Deputy Director (Area planning and Development Control)though he was holding the feeder post (i. e. Special Officer SSE Programme)and on the other hand, promoted the respondents no. 6 and 7 to the post of Deputy Director of Planning (Area Planning and Development Control), although the said respondents did not hold the feeder post of the Deputy Director of planning (Area Planning and Development Control) in utter violation of the rules of promotion as recommended by the Service Committee and accepted at the 63rd Meeting of the Board. It has been further stated that the respondent no. 6 was holding the post of Associated planner (Land Use) (Feeder Post), the promotional post of which was Deputy director of Planning (Land Use ). The respondent no. 7 was holding the post of associated Planner (Architect) (feeder post) the promotional post of which is deputy Director of Planning (Urban design ). The authority concerned mala-fide and in violation of all norms of promotion and without observing the principles of fair play, equity and justice thus promoted the respondents no. 6 and 7 to the said post of Deputy Director of Planning (Area Planning and Development Control) by order. No. . 405/ cmda/2e-48/81dated February 24, 1981, issued by the respondent no. 3. without at all considering the claim of the petitioner to the said post. It has been further stated in this connection that the feeder post for promotion to the post of deputy Director of Planning (Area Planning and Development Control) is the post of your petitioner as will be evident from the recommendations of the service Committee which was duty approved and rectified by the 63rd meeting of the C. M. D. A. Thus; to seal the promotional avenue of the petitioner the respondent no. 6 and 7 have illegally been promoted to the said post of Deputy Director in violation of the Rules of promotion. A copy of this order has been annexed as Annexure 'e' to the writ petition. The petitioner made a representation on the 3rd March, 1981 to the appropriate authority against this injustice, but nothing has been done in his respect. It has been further stated that on the 7th March, 1982 an advertisement was published in the Amrita Bazar Patrika inviting applications for direct recruitment to the post of Director 'arid Deputy Director (Socio Economic Planning, Appraisal, Monitoring and evaluation) etc. under the C. M. D. A. contrary to the Government Circular being No. 5120 (60) LW dated 17th October, 1977 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal. But no interview or appointment has yet been made on the basis of the said advertisement. The petitioner has stated that he is the senior most experienced economist and the only employee holding the Doctorate Degree a amongst the workers working under C. M. D. A. still the respondent no. 3 without considering his expertised service for 8 years in the Socio- Economic Planning Field under C. M. D. A was going to recruit some persons in the post of Director and Deputy Director in the Socio economic Directorate, in order to deprive the petitioner from getting his promotion at least to the post of Deputy director. This advertisement has been annexed as Annexure 'g' to the petition. It has also been stated that the authority concerned in order to recruit the respondent no. 8, who is less; qualified than' the petitioner, to the post of Director)Deputy Director (Socio Economics Planning Appraisal, Monitoring and Evaluation inserted the aforesaid advertisement. It has been further stated that the authorities concerned have illegally, arbitrarily and in utter contravention of the norms of promotion as ad0pted 63rd meeting of the C. M. D. A. promoted the respondents, nos. 6, 7 and 8 who arc junior to the petitioner in service and holding the same and similar cadre to the post of Deputy Director, in contravention of the norms of promotion laid down by the C. M. D. A It has been further submitted that M the 67th meeting of the C. M. D. A. the norms of promotion was specified as strictly on the basis of seniority. The respondent no. 3 has also promoted the respondent no. 9 to the post if Deputy Director, T and T Circle though he was much junior to the petitioner in service having Joined in 1975 by order dated February 24, 1981. a copy of which "has been annexed as Annexure 'h' to the petition.