PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The Court : This writ petition has been taken out by the writ petitioners seeking following principal reliefs: "a) A Writ or in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent nos.1 to 4 and 9, their men, agents, successors, survivors, representatives or assigns and/or each one of them to accord sanction to the creation of three posts of Senior Supervisory Grade in the Cadre of Extra Typist (Regular) and one post of Senior Supervisory Grade in the Cadre of Salaried Typist on the Appellate Side of this Hon'ble Court with effect from 1st January, 2001 as extended to the employees of the State Government vide Memo No.3400-F dated 26th March, 2001 as adopted and approved by the respondent nos.5 and 6; b) A Writ or in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent nos.5 to 8, their men, agents, successors, survivors, representatives or assigns and/or each one of them to accord and grant promotion on the basis of seniority of the petitioners and other consequential service benefits including arrears pay retrospectively with effect from 1st January, 2001 upon sanction to the creation of three posts of Senior Supervisory Grade in the Cadre of Extra Typist (Regular) and one post of Senior Supervisory Grade in the Cadre of Salaried typist on the Appellate Side of this Hon'ble Court by the State Government; c) A Writ or in the nature of Writ of Certiorari directing the respondents their men, agents, successors, survivors, representatives or assigns and/or each one of them to forthwith certify and transmit the entire records pertaining to refusal of sanction for the said posts including Memo no.8374(2)-J dated 24th December, 2010 issued by the respondent no.9, so that upon perusing the same, conscionable justice may be done by quashing the same;"
(2.) An affidavit-in-opposition has been affirmed by one Shibasish Dutta Roy, the law officer of the Finance Department. The said law officer is not a party. There is nothing in the affidavit-in-opposition that shows that he has been authorised duly or otherwise to make and/or affirm the said affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent nos. 1,2,3,4 and /or any of them. The said affidavit-in-opposition does not even begin to deal with the allegations contained in the writ petition. The respondent High Court Administration has not used any affidavit-in-opposition and thereby admitted the contentions of the writ petition. Had the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by Dutta Roy been caused to have been made pursuant to due authorisation by any of the party respondent then the State of West Bengal would also have been deemed to have admitted the contents of the writ petition by non-traverse. Since, however, the authority to affirm the affidavit on behalf of any of the party respondents has not been disclosed by the deponent Dutta Roy, I cannot hold that the said affidavit-in-opposition binds the respondent nos. 1,2,3 or 4 or any of them.
(3.) That leaves me to two alternatives. The first, since already six years have passed from the date of institution of the writ petition and also the date of affirmation of the so called affidavit-in-opposition, to treat the statements contained in the writ petition as those admitted by the respondent State; or to allow the respondent State to file an affidavit-in- opposition affirmed by a duly authorised officer of the State of West Bengal or any of the parties to the writ petition who represent the State.;