SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, J. - (1.) IN spite of service of notice of this writ petition, none appears for the respondent no. 1, namely, Asok Ghosh, the only private respondent in this writ petition.
(2.) IT appears from the records that the private respondent is aware of this proceeding. Previously, he was represented through his learned advocates. It seems that he is no more interested as he has got the service benefits and, ultimately, superannuated from his service. In this writ petition, we are invited to decide as to whether the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal rightly decided the Original Application No. 170 of 2011, inter alia, cancelling the promotion of the petitioner holding, inter alia, that the authorities unjustly denied the seniority in the gradation list. Both the petitioner and the private respondent no. 1 were initially recruited as Sub Assistant Engineers. Subsequently, they were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers. Admittedly, the private respondent no. 1 was senior in both the said cadres. Nevertheless, when the question of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the Directorate of Fisheries came, the authorities considered the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner and the private respondent no. 1 and promoted the petitioner on January 25, 2010 to the post of Executive Engineer as the authorities found him more suitable on the score of merit. The private respondent no. 1 was aggrieved and, therefore, he challenged the decision before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. His application was registered as Original Application No. 170 of 2011. The learned Members of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, by the impugned judgement and order dated June 21, 2013, set aside the promotion order of this petitioner dated January 25, 2010, holding, inter alia, that the private respondent no. 1 was ignored for promotion in the post of Executive Engineer although he was senior to the petitioner.
(3.) THE West Bengal Administrative Tribunal formulated the question for determination as whether promotion of this petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil), denying seniority of the private respondent no. 1, was justified or not. There is no dispute that in the lower two cadres the private respondent no. 1 was senior to the petitioner, but what the tribunal missed is that in the case of promotion a government servant should be selected on the grounds of merit and suitability in all respects and not only on the basis of seniority. It is apparent from the Office Memorandum No. 7119/F/FIS -25/72 dated December 1, 1972 that seniority would be taken into account only when it was impossible to choose between two or more persons on grounds of merit alone. The rule is that a government servant would be selected for promotion on grounds of merit and suitability in all respects and not only on the basis of seniority.;