The Calcutta High Court held that, in the absence of statutory rules, promotions to posts such as District Sheristadar need not be governed solely by seniority if administrative notifications/directives mandate merit-based selection. The judgment affirms that directions issued by the High Court, even if contrary to prevailing conventions or Commission recommendations, are binding on subordinate offices and that seniority alone does not confer a right to promotion. This clarification maintains existing precedent and is binding on subordinate courts in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WPA/6663/2018 of AJIT KUMAR GOND Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS CNR WBCHCA0164672018 |
| Date of Registration | 17-05-2018 |
| Decision Date | 24-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service Law / Administrative Law (Judicial Services – District Court Staff Promotions) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and district judgeships under the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court in matters of promotion to posts like Sheristadar. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and subordinate judiciary outside West Bengal (on principles of following High Court administrative directions in absence of rules). |
| Follows |
|
| Distinguishes | Shetty Commission recommendations as not being statutory rules and not overriding duly notified administrative instructions. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that, in the absence of statutory service rules, High Court administrative orders regarding method of promotion (here, merit-based selection) are binding and override customary practice or Commission recommendations.
- Seniority alone does not confer a right to promotion unless codified by statutory rule or binding regulation.
- Participation in selection/assessment without upfront protest precludes later challenge on grounds of process or criteria.
- Shetty Commission recommendations, even when accepted by Supreme Court, do not automatically attain the status of statutory rules for district judiciary staff promotions unless specifically adopted and notified as such.
- Transparent and notified evaluation criteria, where compliant with High Court directives, withstand constitutional challenge under Articles 14 and 16.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted absence of statutory rules in West Bengal mandating seniority-based promotion to the post of District Sheristadar.
- High Court’s Office Order No.8262/A dated 12.08.1988 mandates that the posts of Sheristadar and similar positions are to be filled by merit, not seniority, and this direction binds all district judgeships under Article 235 of the Constitution.
- The recommendation of the Shetty Commission to fill posts on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, while endorsed by the Supreme Court, does not reach the status of statutory provision unless formally adopted in service rules or notifications.
- The process adopted by the District Judge, Nadia—constituting a selection committee and awarding marks/units based on personality tests—was consistent with High Court’s binding administrative notification and not arbitrary or ultra vires.
- The petitioner participated in the process without objecting to the methodology but assailed it only after being unsuccessful, undermining his case.
- There is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 as the selection process was transparent and followed the binding directives for merit-based promotion.
- The case was also found to be infructuous due to petitioner’s superannuation.
- Reliance was placed on precedents and administrative guidelines, including judgments regarding the principles of merit versus seniority in promotions (Biplab Bhusan Majumder, Jai Narayan Mitra, Indra Sawhney, Virpal Singh Chauhan).
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The respondent authorities arbitrarily and unjustly departed from the established seniority-based convention, violating petitioner’s legitimate expectation and rights.
- The Shetty Commission’s recommendations, endorsed by the Supreme Court, have the force of law and necessitate promotion strictly by seniority among Grade-I Bench Clerks.
- The selection committee and evaluation criteria lacked statutory or regulatory authority; process was opaque and undisclosed, violating principles of natural justice, Articles 14 and 16.
- Seniority is a valuable right and can only be displaced by valid rules, which do not exist here.
- The promotion of a junior over senior without codified authority is arbitrary, discriminatory, and sets a harmful precedent.
- The lack of transparency in awarding marks and criteria denies fair and reasonable opportunity.
Respondent No.2 and 3 (District Judiciary Administration)
- Petitioner’s initial promotion was under reserved quota, and mere seniority does not confer legal right to promotion without statutory provision.
- Appointing Authority (District Judge) is competent to rectify erroneous orders or gradation if mistakes are found.
- No rule exists mandating seniority-based promotion for Sheristadar; existing High Court direction requires merit-based appointments.
- Shetty Commission’s recommendations do not require exclusive seniority, and Supreme Court judgments do not override explicit High Court notifications.
- The entire selection process ensured transparency and adherence to directives.
State
- Government servant has no right to promotion, merely a right to be considered.
- District Judge complied with High Court notification requiring merit-based, not seniority-based, promotion.
- Petition was infructuous due to petitioner’s retirement.
Respondent No.5 (Private Respondent, Selected Candidate)
- Petitioner appeared for interview and personality test, nor did he object in advance to the process based on merit.
- Selection process was transparent, non-discriminatory, and open to all eligible candidates.
- The Shetty Commission did not require exclusive consideration of seniority.
- Petitioner’s challenge is misconceived since the process was consistent with prevailing notifications and legal principles.
Factual Background
The petitioner, Ajit Kumar Gond, was the senior-most Grade-I Bench Clerk in the District Judge’s Court, Nadia, West Bengal, and expected to be promoted to District Sheristadar upon the post falling vacant. Contrary to prior practice and his expectation, a selection committee was constituted which evaluated eligible candidates based on interviews and a unit-based marking system. The promotional process followed a notification from the High Court at Calcutta requiring merit-based selection. The committee promoted a junior-most candidate, leading the petitioner, after unsuccessful participation in the process, to challenge the procedure and promotion through the present writ petition. During the pendency of proceedings, the petitioner superannuated.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 309 (Constitution of India): Service conditions to be regulated by rules made in consultation with, and subject to control of, the High Court for judicial staff.
- Article 235 (Constitution of India): Vests control over district and subordinate judiciary in the High Court.
- Office Order No.8262/A dated 12.08.1988 (Registrar, High Court) directs filling Sheristadar and similar posts on merit, not seniority.
- Shetty Commission recommendations (as endorsed by Supreme Court in 2009): Recommends seniority-cum-fitness for promotions but not codified as binding rule in West Bengal.
- Relevant Office Memoranda of the Central Government: Cited on reservation and seniority, but not determinative for the issue at hand.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court emphasized the binding nature of administrative notifications issued by the High Court and recognized personality tests and merit evaluation (via unit marking) as permissible mechanisms even in the absence of statutory rules, when so provided by higher administrative order.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms existing administrative and judicial precedent regarding High Court’s authority over subordinate judiciary promotions and upholds directions mandating merit-based selection.