Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Asish Kumar Das vs The University Of Calcutta & Ors on 3 August, 2023
03.8.2023
ap
WPA 12996 of 2023
Asish Kumar Das
Vs.
The University of Calcutta & Ors.
Mr. Krishnendu Bera
... For the petitioner.
Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee
Mr. Sourabh Sengupta
... For the University.
The petitioner seeks his promotion to the post of
Senior Superintendent after his retirement from the
post of Junior Superintendent on October 31, 2016.
It appears that the petitioner was initially
promoted as a Senior Assistant on January 01, 1998
and thereafter he was promoted as Junior
Superintendent on August 19, 2010. After serving for
five years in the said post of Junior Superintendent, the
petitioner became eligible for promotion to the next post
of Senior Superintendent.
It also appears that the Establishment
Committee of the University in its meeting dated
February 15, 2016 resolved to consider the issue of
promotion of existing incumbents for the posts,
including the post of Senior Superintendent on the
basis of annual performance report of the relevant
employee.
The process of promotion to the post of
Superintendent, however, could not be completed
before the retirement of petitioner. The University
ultimately promoted 24 employees from Junior
Superintendent to the post of Senior Superintendent
with effect from August 19, 2015 by a letter dated
January 25, 2017. I have already noted that the
petitioner had retired on October 31, 2016.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits that due to the laches and delay on the part of
the University the petitioner could not be promoted to
the post of Senior Superintendent, despite being eligible
for the same well before his retirement. He submits
that since similarly circumstanced Junior
Superintendents had been granted promotion with
retrospective effect, the same benefit should be
extended to the petitioner even after his retirement.
The petitioner's eligibility cannot be negated for non-
assessment of his annual performance report during
his service career.
It has been submitted by the learned advocate for
the petitioner that it was the policy of the university to
grant promotion on Seniority-cum-Merit principle.
In support of his submission, he relies upon a
judgment reported at (2014) 3 SCC 670 (Major
General H.M. Singh, VSM -versus- Union of India
and Another) to argue that a promotion can be given
even after retirement of an employee.
I am unable to accept the contention of the
petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner was within the zone
of consideration during his service tenure.
Unfortunately, no promotions were made to the
similarly circumstanced employees before his
retirement on October 31, 2016. The promotion does
not depend on the seniority only, but takes into
account various factors including the annual
performance report. It cannot be said that on the basis
of seniority or length of service the petitioner was
automatically entitled to be promoted. Without the
determination of the eligibility, it cannot be said that
the petitioner had a right to get promotion even after
his retirement.
The judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon
by the petitioner does not support the case of the
petitioner since it will be evident that in paragraph 34
of the said judgment the Supreme Court took note of
the fact that the relevant selection committee
recommended promotion of the officer on the basis of
his service record, past performance, qualities of
leadership as well as vision, out of a panel of four
names.
In the present case, the petitioner's eligibility for
promotion could not be determined during his service
tenure and the same cannot be done after his
retirement.
Accordingly, WPA 12996 of 2023 is dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be made available to the parties upon
compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Kausik Chanda, J.)
