Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) Admittedly, twelve (12) writ petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Development Officers vide appointment letter issued on 27th February, 2009. Subsequently, the said post of Assistant Development Officer was re-designated as Development Officer in implementation of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission vide office memo dated 26th August, 2009. The service of the petitioners was confirmed as Development Officers w.e.f 12th March, 2010. Since 2009 three (3) vacancies were created in the post of Assistant Director of Tea Development. Subsequently, in the year 2011 the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India sanctioned Small Growers Directorate. The said Ministry sanctioned twelve (12) post of Assistant Director of Tea Development. Thus fifteen (15) vacant posts of Assistant Director of Tea Development were available in Tea Board. Out of the aforesaid fifteen (15) post of Assistant Director of Tea Development six (6) posts were filled by way of promotion from the post of Development Officer in the year 2011. Subsequently, in 2013, three (3) posts became vacant. Thus, the existing vacancy in the said post is twelve (12).
(2.) The feeder post for filling up the vacancies in the post of Assistant Director of Tea Development is Development Officer by promotion. The minimum qualifying service for promotion from the post having the grade pay of Rs.4200/- (present grade pay of the Development Officer) to the post having grade pay of Rs. 5400/- (present grade pay of Assistant Director of Tea Development) was declared as eight (8) years vide DOPT circular No. AB 14017/2008-Estt.(RR) dated 24th March, 2009 and 12th March 2010. The employer viz. the Tea Board could not find any Development Officer having eight years of qualifying service as per the aforesaid circular of DOPT or having the minimum qualifying service period of seven (7) years as per 1971 R & P Rules which was being followed by the Board at the relevant time. The competent authority of the Board thus decided that in absence of eligibile Development Officers to be promoted to the post of Assistant Director of Tea Development, the existing vacant post of Assistant Director of Tea Development will be filled up through direct recruitment. Such decision of the Board was notified vide office Memo No. 132 of 2013 dated 18th June, 2013.
(3.) The petitioners felt aggrieved as the mode of selection process for the post of Assistant Director of Tea Development was changed even though eligible candidates are available in the feeder post who according to the petitioner should have been given an opportunity for being selected by way of promotion to the said promotional post of Assistant Director of Tea Development. The petitioners claimed that as per the extant provision of the Tea Board (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Officers appointed by Government) Rules, 1971 which is being followed by the Tea Board for filling up the vacancies to the post of Assistant Director of Tea Development, all the writ petitioners satisfy the eligibility criteria. They contended that by issuance of an office Memorandum prescribing higher qualifying period of service in the feeder post, the provisions contained in the statutory rules cannot be nullified as the said Rule has neither been amended nor the amended Rules have been notified. They thus challenged the decision of the Tea Board in enforcing eligibility criteria by fixing higher qualifying service period as contained in the office Memorandum dated 18th June, 2013 by filing the writ petition being W.P. No. 18713 (W) of 2013. The said writ petition was, ultimately, dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by an order passed on 14th March, 2014, by holding, inter alia, that as to the petitioners' attempt to challenge the notification of 18th June, 2013 on the ground of the eligibility criteria for the direct recruits, it does not appear that the petitioners have the locus standi to fashion such challenge. It was also observed that there was nothing to show that the petitioners wanted to participate at any examination to assess their suitability for being directly recruited to the post of Assistant Director of Tea Development. Such conclusion was drawn as the petitioners were found to have successfully protested against the previous notification that had been published by the employer for promotion on the basis of an examination. The writ petition was thus dismissed.;