Mahitosh Majumdar, J. - (1.) Consequent upon a series of orders passed by this Court in F. M. A. T. No. 144 of 1985 including an order passed by this Court on January 27, 1986 on the second application tor contempt filed by the writ petitioners, a batch of officers being Respondent Nos. 6,7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20, 23 and 29 to the writ petition filed an application on February 19, 1986. The said batch of officers did not contest at any stage of the writ proceedings either before the Writ Court or the Appeal Court or the Supreme Court.
(2.) Before embarking upon the adjudication of the case, it is fit and proper for us to set out the salient features of the present case which involved a series of debate during all these days. The facts of the case, in its barest out-line, are presented hereunder:- In the year, 1973 the writ petitioners were holding the post of Assistant Engineers, Class-II on officiating basis without their being any regular selection and consequential promotion. On February 19, 1976 office Circular was issued from the Chief Personnel Officer for the purpose of formation of a panel for Class-II for the post of Assistant Engineer. It appears from the aforesaid Circular that it has been decided to form a provisional panel of Assistant Engineers, Class-II form for 25 post of which 4 posts are reserved for S. C. S. and 2 for S. T. S and remaining 19 posts are unreserved. In the month of March, 1976 a written test was held. South Eastern Railway Administration called 138 candidates to appear in the written test. 98 candidates out of 138 candidates were found and declared qualified in the said written examination and were directed to appear in viva-voce test. On December 14 and 19, 1976 respectively the viva-voce test was held. The Chief Personnel Officer published a panel of 25 persons for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers, Class-II. The said panel consists of A. Biswas and other being Respondent Nos. 5 to 29 m the writ application. A reference may be made to office Order No. 18575 dated March 15, 1977 shows that A. Biswas and others were promoted as is indicated above. It is proper for this Court at this stage to refer to the fact that the writ petitioners and Respondent Nos. 5 to 29 in the writ petition, prior to the holding of the selection test in the year, 1976, were all officiating as Assistant Engineers, Class-II on adhoc basis, but the writ petitioners were officiating in the post of Assistant Engineers, Class-II. The panel thus prepared by pursuant the derision of the Railway Administration made in the year, 1976 was impeached in the application filed on behalf of the writ petitioners being C. R. No. 6501 (W) of 1978. The panel was challenged on several grounds namely, (a) the writ petitioners were selected in the written examination as well as viva voce test and found suitable but they were not taken on absorption to the post of Assistant Engineers, Class-II as there did not exist sufficient vacancies. (b) The panel was not prepared correctly. The writ petitioners should have been included in be panel along with 25 persons. On March 15, 1977 a panel was published. Sri A. Biswas and others being Respondent Nos. 5 to 29 were included. On March 25, 1977 Respondents No. 5 to 29 were promoted on regular basis sequel to their selection. The entire panel stands exhausted. There was no provision for anticipated vacancies for the next two years as required under the provisions of law. A batch of successful Assistant Engineers who appeared in the written test examination and viva voce test during the month of October, 1979 were not allowed lo be absorbed on the ground that the panel could not be given effect to the reason of fact the interim order of injunction on the application filed by the writ petitioners was then operative. Civil Rule No.6501(W) of 1978 came up for hearing.
(3.) The learned trial Judge after carefully considering the pros and cons of the entire matter came to the finding that the panel was not prepared in accordance with the Circular of the Board. The basis of the findings that the panel was prepared in aviation of the Railway Board, that the assessment was not at all made or if made, was not at all correct. The said assessment, if made, is purely adhoc and did not lake into account the reality of the situation. Correct assessment of a number of vacancies was not determined as a result whereof the writ petitioners could not be absorbed. The Chief Engineer in his note dated May 3, 1979 while noticing the enlargement of the panel that took place in other railways recorded that the similar action may be taken with regard to 1977 panel with the approval of the Railway Board.;