Barin Ghosh, J. -
(1.) IN the present writ petition, the principal contention of the petitioner is that despite there being eight available sanctioned posts of Deputy Chief Engineers, after having had given promotion to five people to the posts of Deputy Chief Engineers, no effort has been made for no just reason to supply the vacancies in the remaining three sanctioned posts of Deputy Chief Engineers. In the pleadings filed by the respondent employer, they have stated that by letter dated 18th October, 2001, the new staff pattern, applicable to the respondent employer, was given effect to. A scrutiny of that letter would make it amply clear that in terms of the new staff pattern, thus, introduced, eight sanctioned posts of Deputy Chief Engineers became available in the cadre. It is the contention, however, in the affidavit filed by the respondent employer that in order to fill up those eight sanctioned posts of Deputy Chief Engineers, respondent employer was required to obtain approval of a Committee and also of the District Magistrate. The respondent employer, however, has not brought on record any document, from where it would be evidenced that the respondent employer ever approached any Committee or the District Magistrate to fill up any of those five posts of Deputy Chief Engineers, which have been supplied by the respondent employer. That being the situation, the logical conclusion would be that obtaining of approval of a Committee or of the District Magistrate is nothing, but a bogey. There appears to be no dispute that the Rules, governing the field, provide that in the matter of supplying vacancies in the said posts, a ratio 4 : 1 of Mechanical and Electrical Engineers is required to be maintained. There is also no dispute that in relation to supplying vacancies in the said posts, reservation policy of the State applies and, accordingly, those posts can be filled up in accordance with the roster points contained in the hundred point roster approved by the State. At the same time, there is also no dispute that there were enough people in the feeding cadre, who could supply the remaining three vacancies, which have not yet been supplied. Therefore, we declare that it was unjust on the part of the Departmental Promotion Committee not to select appropriate people to supply the remaining three posts on the basis of their inhibition that supplying of vacancies in five posts would suffice. It appears that before the Departmental Promotion Committee supplied four vacancies, when they held out that supplying of five vacancies is more than sufficient, one person, who is an Electrical Engineer and belonging to general category, was already holding the post of a Deputy Chief Engineer. Out of the four people, who were promoted by the Departmental Promotion Committee, one belong to Scheduled Caste community and the remaining three belong to general category, but all of them are Mechanical Engineers. In the circumstances, while the reservation policy, as enshrined in the hundred point roster, has been complied with, the ratio of Mechanical Engineers and Electrical Engineers, as mentioned above, has also been maintained to the extent possible. There can be no difficulty in supplying the remaining three vacancies by following the roster points as contained in the hundred point roster. There may be some difficulty in maintaining the ratio of Mechanical Engineers and Electrical Engineers, since the posts are only eight and not ten. In such circumstances, it is incumbent upon the employer to ensure that ultimately the said ratio is maintained. In order to do so, it is also required for the employer to fix a roster for Mechanical and Electrical Engineers. Since the first roster point in such roster has already been supplied by an Electrical Engineer, the sixth roster point can only be supplied by an Electrical Engineer. Again, the eleventh roster point can only be supplied by an Electrical Engineer. That may be also indicated in the hundred point roster for the purpose of convenience.
(2.) INASMUCH as the criterion for promotion as fixed in the Rules is "seniority -cum -merit", we direct the respondent employer to constitute a suitable Departmental Promotion Committee for the purpose of ascertaining merit of the people in the feeder post to be fixed on the basis of a benchmark, as laid down in the Rules already prescribed by the State Government and thereupon to promote those, who have succeeded in obtaining or crossing such benchmark, on the basis of seniority, but in accordance with those two rosters or in accordance with the hundred point roster where roster points have been marked also for Mechanical and Electrical Engineers. With the direction as above, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction upon the respondent employer to constitute such Departmental Promotion Committee within a period of one month from the date of service of a copy of this order upon the respondent employer.;