Calcutta High Court
Tarun Kumar Mondal vs The Honble High Court At Calcutta ... on 13 May, 2025
Author: T.S Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S Sivagnanam
2023:CHC-OS:3904-DB
od-11 & 12
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO. GA/2/2023
In APO/4/2021
TARUN KUMAR MONDAL
Vs
THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SERVICE THROUGH REGISTRAR
GENERAL AND ORS
IA NO. GA/2/2023
In APO/5/2021
TARUN KUMAR MONDAL
Vs
REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ORS
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM
-A N D-
HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
DATE : 13th May, 2025.
Appearance :
Mr. Sanjay Mukherjee, Adv. ...for appellant.
Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty, Adv....for High Court Administration.
Re: IA NO. GA/2/2023 in APO/4/2021
IA NO. GA/2/2023 in APO/5/2021
The Court :- Two applications have been filed to recall the order dated
5.7.2023 by which the intra-court appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed for
non-prosecution.
We have heard Mr. Sanjay Mukherjee, learned advocate for the appellant and
Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty, learned advocate for the High Court administration.
The learned advocate appearing for the appellant, who candidly submit that on
account of the mistake committed by the counsel the matters were not noted and,
therefore, there was no appearance when the matters were taken up on two occasions
2
2023:CHC-OS:3904-DB
and the learned counsel sincerely agreed for the mistake and prays that the appellant
would not be penalised for such mistake committed by the learned counsel.
Considering the said candid submission and also taking note of the fact that
the matters involves the career prospects of a judicial officer, we exercise discretion
and allow the applications and recall the order dated 5.7.2023 and restore the appeals
to be heard and decided on merits.
Accordingly, the application, IA No.GA/2/2023 in connection with both the
appeals being APO/4/2021 and APO/5/2021 stands disposed of.
Re: APO/4/2021 and APO/5/2021
By consent of both the parties these two appeals are taken up for hearing,
treating the same as on day's list.
These intra-court appeals have been filed challenging the common order dated
11.12.2020 by which WPO/395/2020 filed by the appellant was dismissed on merits
and WPO/613/2019 was dismissed as having become infructuous.
The appellant filed WPO/395/2020 praying for a direction upon the High Court
administration to set aside the decision as communicated to the appellant on 2.9.2020
rejecting his representation dated 19.1.2019 and for consequential direction to
promote him as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court with effect
from 2018 with necessary seniority being promoted. WPO/613/2019 was filed for
issuance of Writ of Mandamus to set aside the decision taken by the Administrative
Committee of this Court in its meeting held on 4.7.2019 and for a consequential
direction to promote the appellant in the vacant post in terms of the results dated
8.11.2018. The learned single Bench by common order has dismissed WPO/395/2020
on merits and WPO/613/2019 as having become infructuous.
3
2023:CHC-OS:3904-DB
We have elaborately heard learned advocate for the appellant as well as the
learned advocate for the High Court administration and carefully perused the
materials placed on record. The entire case as projected by the appellant and as
pleaded before us by the learned advocate is based on an information secured by the
appellant under the Right To Information Act wherein the appellant was informed that
four posts were lying vacant in the Fast Track Court in the year 2018 after filling up
20 posts which was declared by notification dated 2.4.2018. The appellant claims that
the appellant stood in serial no.24 and had 24 vacancies been declared, the appellant
could have been accommodated in the post of Fast Track Court Judge and the same
have not been done, the prayers sought for in the writ petition ought to have been
allowed. To examine the correctness of the contention, we have to take note of the
facts which are not in dispute. Selection process was conducted by the High Court for
filling up 20 vacancies [existing and prospective] for the year 2018 in Fast Track Court
as declared vide notification dated 2.4.2018 by involving 60 officers in the ratio of 1:3
in order of seniority from the subordinate post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) which
included the appellant. In terms of the notification all eligible officers were directed to
submit the requisite three sets of judgments [five civil and five criminal] vide
notification dated 4.4.2018 wherein the name of the appellant appeared in serial
no.26. In pursuance to the said notification all eligible officers including the appellant
submitted requisite judgments and attended viva voce which was held on 9.7.2018.
The Committee after assessment of the Annual Confidential Report for the last
available five years for each of the officers, evaluation of judgments received from them
and the marks awarded in the viva voce, the final report was passed vide notification
dated 8.11.2018 recommending the Fast Track Officers for appointment on promotion
as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court wherein the name of the
appellant appeared in serial no.24.
4
2023:CHC-OS:3904-DB
The contention of the appellant is that four vacancies still existed which was
made known when the appellant filed an application under the RTI Act dated
21.12.2018 and the appellant ought to have been accommodated in one such vacancy
which admittedly existed. The correctness of the contention raised by the appellant
has to be examined based on facts more particularly as to when the four vacancies
arose. The reply given to the RTI query is correct on facts because on the date when
the appellant had made the queries that is on 21.12.2018. Admittedly, there were four
vacancies but it is to be noted that the application under RTI Act dated 21.12.2018
was filed much after the publication of the final merit list which was notified on
8.11.2018. Next aspect to be seen is as to when those four vacancies arose. It is not in
dispute that the four vacancies arose after the conclusion of the selection process in
the Fast Track Court consequent to the promotion of the three officers through limited
competitive examination 2018 and promotion of one other officer posted in fast track
court from the merit list of limited competitive examination 2018 against one of four
unfilled vacancies in the Court Direct Recruitment, 2018 and the fourth vacancy
occurred on the promotion of a candidate posted in the first track court from the merit
list of the normal promotion, 2018 against one of the four unfilled vacancies in the
Court Direct Recruitment, 2018, thus, totaling four vacancies in the post of Additional
District & Session Judge, Fast Track Court. These vacancies having occurred
subsequently and at no stretch of imagination be treated as anticipated vacancies and,
therefore, they could not have been included in the category of prospective vacancies
and if this be the admitted factual position, there can be no error attributed to the
computation of the number of vacancies which occurred in the Fast Track Courts
during the relevant year. The appellant submitted a representation on 19.1.2019 and
also filed a writ petition praying for disposing of the said representation in
WP/298/2018 which was disposed of by order dated 28.6.2019 directing the High
5
2023:CHC-OS:3904-DB
Court Administration to take necessary steps on the representation made by the
appellant dated 19.1.2019 in accordance with law. The representation was considered
by the Hon'ble Administrative Committee and it was resolved that the representation
is liable to be rejected in view of the current rule position as no promotion can be
effected against vacancies beyond the declared vacancies for the year 2018. However,
the Administrative Committee observed that the representation of the appellant is not
finally rejected since the issue whether the High Court would recommend formulating
a rule for effecting temporary promotion in the interest of better administration of
justice is yet to be addressed and, therefore, to that extent the representation of the
appellant was deferred. The decision of the Administrative Committee was
communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 25.7.2019 and also the other High
Courts were addressed on 10.12.2018 to provide the rules relating to temporary
promotion of judicial officers. Further, it is not in dispute that the subsequent
notification was issued on 23.4.2019 declaring 21 vacancies in Fast Track Courts to
be filled up for the year 2018 which was followed by publishing the names of 63
officers involved in the selection process in the ratio 1:3 including the appellant and
directing him to submit the requisite number of judgments in civil and criminal cases
delivered by him. It is also not in dispute that though the appellant submitted
requisite copies of judgments did not attend the interview for the selection process for
the post of Additional District & Session Judge, Fast Track Court, 2019 and,
accordingly, he was marked absent as he did not attend the viva voce though the
appellant's judgment were assessed and he was permitted to participate in the viva
voce. The result of the selection process on merit cum seniority for the post of
Additional District & Session Judge, Fast Track Court was published by notification
dated 23.4.2019 though initially the number of vacancies for the selection for 2019
was declared as 24 subsequently it was modified to 21 by notification dated 23.4.2019
6
2023:CHC-OS:3904-DB
and a disclaimer was also issued in the earlier notification that the number of
vacancies may vary depending on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
application that the High Court shall file following the Full Court Resolution dated
11.4.2019. Furthermore, the stand taken by the respondent that the post publication
of the notification it was discovered that there were four more vacancies relating to the
said post but as there was no existing rule of temporary promotion of judicial
vacancies, the four vacancies could not be filled up and further notification dated
23.4.2019 was issued declaring 21 vacancies in Fast Track Court to be filled up for the
year 2019 followed by notification dated 23.4.2019. Therefore, the stand taken by the
respondent is perfectly justified when admittedly four vacancies in 2018 arose much
after the vacancies and publication of notification, the appellant does not have a case
to plead that he should be accommodated in one of those vacancies. In any event, by
efflux of time, the prayer sought for in the writ petition cannot be implemented as on
date as there were subsequent notifications which were issued and in which the
appellant did not choose to participate. Therefore, for all the above reasons, we do not
find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Bench.
Accordingly, the appeals fail and are dismissed along with all connected
applications.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
pkd/SD.
