UJJWAL KANTI PANDIT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6. None appears on call for the respondent nos. 1 and 7.

(2.) The petitioner is currently serving as a Supply Officer (re-designated as Planning Officer w.e.f. 13.01.2016) with the Tea Board (respondent no. 2) and is aspiring for promotion to the post of 'Assistant Secretary' of the Tea Board for which 'Supply Officer' is one of the feeder cadre. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that the respondent no. 7, who is holding the substantive post of Law Officer was given additional responsibility of the job of Assistant Secretary on 06.04.2017 and such ad hoc arrangement is continuing since then.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the cadre of Supply Officer/Joint Controller of licensing/Welfare Liaison Officer is the Feeder Cadre to the post of Assistant Secretary, as per the schedule of the Tea Board (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Officers appointed by the Government) Rules, 1971. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Security Officer (re-designated as Estate Officer w.e.f. 13.01.2016). On the strength of recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC for short) held on 07.06.2011, one P.C. Boro was promoted to the post of Supply Officer w.e.f. 14.06.2011 against which the aggrieved petitioner had moved the Calcutta High Court. The Calcutta High Court vide order dated 19.01.2015 in APO No. 63/2014 in WP No. 658/2011, disposed of the said appeal with the following observations: