Bankim Chandra Ray, J. - (1.) This Rule is at the instance of the petitioner, Dr. Amarendra Kumar De, who retired from service as Assistant Professor on 31-5-77. The grievance of the petitioner is that due to the bias on the part of the authorities concerned in not giving him promotion which he was entitled to according to the rules and in not fixing him to the appropriate grade of service and also not fixing his scale of pay he has been very much wronged while juniors in service to him have been promoted and fixed to the higher grade and position and also higher scale of pay overriding his claim. As such this application has been made before this Court with the prayers that a Writ of Mandamus should be issued commanding the respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 directing them to withdraw and/or recall the orders conferring academic status whereby the petitioners claim to such promotion has been superseded and junior officers were promoted. There was a further prayer for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to recall the orders of promotion to special selection grade "superseding the claim of the petitioner to such promotion. There was also a prayer for a writ of certiorari commanding the respondents to transmit and to certify to this Court all the records relating to the issue of the orders so that the same may be quashed and set aside. This application was moved on 15-5-79. On 11-2-81 a Rule was issued but no interim order was granted.
(2.) Before coming to the merits of this case it is necessary to state hereinbefore the background in which this application has been moved. Previously another application was moved before this Court and a Rule being C. R. No. 8407 (W) of 1972 was issued. This Rule was disposed of on 4-8-77 by A. K. Mukheijee, J. on the following terms : "In view of the assurance given by the Government through the Government Pleader that the petitioners representation will be considered by the appropriate authority within two months after the submission of the representation the petitioner does' not want to proceed with the Rule. Accordingly, this Rule is discharged for non-prosecution." Thereafter this application has been made as the representation of the petitioner was not properly considered by the respondents as stated in the petition. It has also been stated that the learned Advocate General, State of West Bengal, on the basis of the said order gave an opinion recommending that the injustice that was done to the petitioner in not giving him the academic status, seniority in service and also not fixing him to proper scale of pay should be given to him in order to remove the injustice meted out to the petitioner. This opinion has been annexed as annexure C to the petition.
(3.) Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted with great vehemence relying on the opinion of the learned Advocate General that in spite of the clear opinion tendered by the Advocate General at the instance of the State of West Bengal the same has not been honoured and/or conformed to by the State of West Bengal. It has been submitted by Mr. Roy Choudhury further in this connection that on the basis of the order passed by this Court in the earlier Civil Rule the opinion of the Advocate General was sought for and after the opinion was given by the learned Advocate General on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case it is proper on the part of the State to give effect to and to enforce the suggestions made in the aforesaid opinion. Mr. Roy Choudhury has further submitted that his client though retired from service on 31-5-77 is yet entitled to come before this Court for redress of his grievances and more so because the impugned orders made by the respondents have affected his rights. In other words it has been submitted that the impugned orders have civil consequences and as such if is a fit case for the Writ Court to consider and to afford appropriate relief by passing appropriate orders.;