S.Talapatra - (1.)Heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 and Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel along with Mr. T. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.
(2.)The controversy in this writ petition falls within a short compass. The petitioner was considered on completion of 12 years in Tripura Civil Service [Grade-II] for appointment to the next higher grade, Tripura Civil Service [Grade-I] by the Departmental Promotional Committee [DPC in short] held on 24.01.2011. There is no dispute that there were clear 11 [eleven] vacancies in the said selection grade. But one of the officers, namely Utpal Majumder who was facing departmental proceeding had been considered but his case was kept under a sealed cover. As a result, out of the said 11 vacancies, the DPC kept one vacancy unfilled against Utpal Majumder. The DPC recommended 10 [ten] officers. The recommendation made by the DPC for 10 [ten] officers has been provided in a tabular form by the respondents No.1 & 2 at their reply. The said formation has not been questioned by the petitioner and hence, the said table is extracted hereunder:
The petitioner's name has figured at serial No.10. In the midst of process, one writ petition was filed by a group of officers being W.P.(C) No.109 of 2011 in the Gauhati High Court which had at the relevant point of time the territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter. When the state had approached this court for vacating the interim order, passed earlier, by filing an application being CM. App. No.205 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No.109 of 2011 it had been observed as under:

"That being the position, the interim order passed stands modified, allowing the Sate to proceed with the process to fill up the posts in TCS Selection Grade. The State while doing so shall bear in mind that only 6 [six] posts are available both for SC & ST category under the Reservation Act. However, the appointment by way of promotion to the said grade against the reserved categories shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition."

But the State Government found that 7 [seven] officers recommended against the vacancies earmarked for the reserved category. As such, the petitioner was not appointed/promoted in terms of the said interim order. Now, the petitioner has approached this court by filing this petition to seek the relief that the appointment of the petitioner on promotion to TCS [Grade-I] should be effected from the date of promotion when 9 [nine] officers who were recommended along with him by DPC held on 24.01.2011 were appointed with all consequential service benefits including financial benefits and seniority etc.

(3.)Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the said denial of the promotion to the petitioner is grossly arbitrary inasmuch as from the minutes of the DPC held on 24.01.2011 it would be evident that out of 11 [eleven] vacancies, 4 [four] were for ST, 3 [three] were for SC and 4 [four] were for UR and the said allotment was made on the basis of inspection report of 100 point roster. For purpose of reference, the relevant part of the DPC minutes is reproduced hereunder:
According to the information contained in the certified Inspection report of the 100 point roster and the information furnished by the Government in the GA(P&T) Department, the break-up of the vacancies in the TCS, Gr-I [Selection Grade] is as under:

;