Shri Narayan Chakraborty vs State of Tripura and 8 others

TRHC010000142026 2026:THC:1231


HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA

WP(C) No.62 of 2026


Shri Narayan Chakraborty,
Son of Late Krishna Kumar Chakraborty,
Resident of Shyamali Apartment, Nandannagar,
P.O.: Kunjaban, Ward No.6, District: West Tripura.

.....Petitioner(s)


Versus


1. State of Tripura,
Represented by Secretary, Government of Tripura in the Industries and
Commerce (Handloom, Handicrafts & Sericulture), Civil Secretariat, New
Capital Complex, P.O.: Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura.

2.The Director,
Directorate of Handloom, Handicrafts and Sericulture, having office at
I.T.I. Road, Indranagar, P.O.: Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura.

3. Under Secretary,
Government of Tripura in the Industries & Commerce Department,
Capital Complex, P.O.: Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura.

4. The Director,
Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Government of Tripura, having
office at Gorkha Basti, P.O.: Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura.

5. Shri Rajib Choudhury,
Handloom Development Officer, Posted at the Office of the Directorate
of Handloom, Handicrafts and Sericulture, Head Office-Indranagar,
Agartala, P.O.: Kunjaban, District: West Tripura.

6. Shri Pranab Basu, Handloom Development Officer, Amarpur and
posted at Karbook Handloom Cluster, Government of Tripura, P.O.:
Amarpur, District: Gomati, Tripura.

7. Shri Bapi Deb, Handloom Development Officer, Posted at the Office
of the Directorate of Handloom, Handicrafts and Sericulture, Head
office-Indranagar, Agartala, P.O.: Kunjaban, District: West Tripura.

8. Shri Pradhan Das, posted as Handloom Development Officer,
Malaya Handloom Cluster, Kamalpur, P.O.: Kamalpur, District: Dhalai.

(Notice upon Respondents Nos.5-8 to be served through respondent
No.2)

9. Tripura Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary,
having office at Akhaura Road, P.O.: Agartala, PIN: 799001, West
Tripura.



----Respondent(s)

Page 2 of 14


For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tapas Datta Majumder, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Budhinika Kaipeng, Adv.
Ms. Shipthang Rani Kaipeng, Adv.


For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. GA
Mr. Kundan Pandey, Adv.

Date of hearing : 01.09.2026



Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 07.09.2026


Whether fit for
reporting : YES

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order



The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the
following reliefs:
“a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction,
quashing and setting aside the decision
conveyed vide Notification No.F.6(51-
33)/HR/DHHS/2000/PART-II/18286-89 dated
08.07.2024 (Annexure-6 to the petition supra)
to the extent it deprives the Petitioner of getting
promotion in available post from the date his
juniors were given adhoc promotion;

b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order, or direction,
commanding the Respondents to consider and
grant promotion to the Petitioner to the post of
Handloom Development Officer against a regular
vacancy for the UR category for the period 2021,
with effect from the date his juniors
(Respondents Nos. 5 to 8) were promoted, along
with all consequential benefits including arrears
of salary, seniority, and increments;

c) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing
the Respondents to forthwith comply with the
orders dated 27.09.2023 in WP(C) No.164 of
2023 in its true letter and spirit;

d) Issue Rule Nisi in terms of prayers (a) to (c)
above;

e) Award costs of the petition to the Petitioner;

f) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of
justice.”

2. Heard Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Tapas Datta Majumder
assisted by Learned Counsel, Ms. Budhinika Kaipeng appearing on
behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Learned Addl. GA, Mr. Mangal
Debbarma appearing on behalf of the respondents-State and Learned

Page 3 of 14

Counsel, Mr. Kundan Pandey appearing on behalf of the respondent-
TPSC. None appeared on behalf of private respondent Nos.5 to 8.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was
appointed as an Inspector (Handloom) on 30.09.1989 under the
Directorate of Industries of Handloom, Handicrafts and Sericulture
Department, Government of Tripura and has been serving therein since
the date of his joining. As per the seniority list issued vide memo dated
27.04.2022 ( Annexure-1 ), the petitioner was placed at serial No.1
amongst the Inspectors in the feeder cadre.
In the year 2021, the Government introduced ad-hoc
promotion policy vide notification dated 22.06.2021 for the purpose of
filling up the vacancies temporarily ( Annexure-2 ). In pursuance of the
said policy, vide notification dated 16.01.2023, four juniors i.e. the
respondent Nos.5 to 8 herein were promoted to the post of Handloom
Development Officer on ad-hoc basis ( Annexure-3 ). It is the case of the
petitioner that those promotees were junior to him as per the seniority
list and the supersession happened due to uncommunicated adverse
remarks in the ACRs for the year 2017-18 and 2018-19, which were
never communicated to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, this
violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner, being
aggrieved, filed a writ petition bearing WP(C) No.164 of 2023 and a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.09.2023 disposed of
the case in favour of the petitioner with a direction to the authority to
form a review DPC ( Annexure-4 ).
The review DPC met on 15.03.2024 and found the petitioner
fit for promotion ( Annexure-5 ). However, according to the petitioner the
three numbers of regular posts made available in the earlier DPC was
suppressed to the review DPC. According to the petitioner, in spite of

Page 4 of 14

promoting him against the existing vacancy and granting retrospective
benefit, the review DPC recommended the creation of supernumerary
post for the petitioner which is in opposition of service jurisprudence.
It was also stated that on 08.07.2024, the Government
issued a notification sanctioning the creation of a post for the petitioner,
but Rule 9(2) of the Tripura SC & ST Reservation Rules, 1992 and para
No.7 of Adhoc Promotion Policy meant for other purpose. Since the
petitioner belongs to UR category so, the said rule does not apply to
him, which according to the petitioner was a blatant misuse of law
turning his promotion into a hollow gesture. It was further the case of
the petitioner that as per the Government of India’s guideline for review
DPC as adopted by the State, when a review DPC find any officer fit
he/she must be promoted immediately with retrospective effect. If no
vacancy exists, then the junior-most promoted person should be
reverted to make room. However, here in this case that was not done.
The petitioner filed a contempt petition bearing Cont.Cas(C)
No.12 of 2024 which was disposed of on 02.08.2024 ( Annexure-8 ).
Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the Government and the order
dated 02.08.2024 in Cont.Cas(C) No.12 of 2024 was set aside vide
judgment and order dated 25.03.2025 in Cont.App(C) No.4 of 2024
( Annexure-9 ).
The petitioner preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India which was also dismissed ( Annexure-10 ). According to
the petitioner, this dismissal does not erase the original order dated
27.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.164 of 2023. So, narrating all these,
this writ petition is filed before this Court.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
although the order in Cont.Cas(C) No.12 of 2024 passed by this Court

Page 5 of 14

was set aside in the appeal i.e. Cont.App(C) No.4 of 2024, but the
original order dated 27.09.2023 passed in favour of the petitioner still
stands. The name of the petitioner all along surfaced in the top of the
seniority list but, unfortunately suppressing his ACRs and without
communicating the ACRs, he was deprived of getting promotion and his
juniors were promoted. According to Learned Senior Counsel, although
the review DPC found the petitioner fit for promotion and recommended
for creation of supernumerary post but, the petitioner should be
promoted to the regular post and his juniors should be reverted back to
the other post including the supernumerary post created for the
petitioner. It was further submitted by Learned Senior Counsel that as
per the Government of India’s guidelines for Review Departmental
Promotion Committee dated 10.04.1989, which has been adopted by
the State of Tripura, the review DPC ought to have considered the case
of the petitioner for promotion in the regular post. But, the review DPC
without recommending his name for the regular post, considered to give
promotion to the petitioner by creating supernumerary post, which was
totally impermissible, in violation of the principles of natural justice and
also the gross violation of the guidelines of the Departmental Promotion
Committee. So, Learned Senior Counsel, in summing up all the facts,
urged before this Court to allow this writ petition.
5. The respondents-State have contested the case by filing the
counter affidavit. In para Nos.5, 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, the
State-respondents have asserted as under:
“5. That, before adverting to the specific
averments made in the writ petition, the
answering respondent most respectfully places
the chronology of events, which clearly
demonstrates that the present writ petition is
wholly misconceived and amounts to abuse of
the process of law:

5.1. That the present writ petition
constitutes the fifth round of litigation on

Page 6 of 14

the same subject matter and on identical
grounds.

5.2. That the petitioner has claimed that he
was not promoted to the post of Handloom
Development Officer, whereas four of his
juniors were promoted vide notification
dated 16.01.2023. The petitioner has further
claimed grant of the 3rd Assured Career
Progression (ACP) upon completion of 25
years of service as on 2014, along with
interest on consequential benefits.
Accordingly, he filed a writ petition being
WP(C) No. 164 of 2023 (hereinafter referred
to as the First Case).

5.3. That by order dated 27.09.2023
(Annexure-4 to the writ petition), this
Hon'ble Court, in the First Case, directed the
respondent State to take a decision by
constituting a Review Departmental
Promotion Committee (DPC) in respect of
the petitioner's claim for promotion and
grant of 3rd ACP.

5.4. That in compliance with the aforesaid
order, a Review DPC was duly constituted
and convened on 15.03.2024 (Annexure-5 to
the writ petition), which decided to grant
promotion to the petitioner by creation of
one (01) supernumerary post (UR) as a one-
time measure. Thus, the answering
respondent duly complied with the directions
issued in the First Case.

5.5. That, being aggrieved, the petitioner
filed a contempt petition being Cont. Cas (C)
No. 12 of 2024 (hereinafter referred to as
the Second Case), alleging wilful
disobedience of the order dated 27.09.2023
passed in WP(C) No. 164 of 2023.

5.6. That this Hon'ble Court, in the contempt
proceedings, vide order dated 02.08.2024
(Annexure-8 to the writ petition), directed
that the petitioner's promotion be treated
retrospectively from the date his juniors
were promoted.It is most respectfully
submitted that the Review DPC had
recommended promotion on a prospective
basis, and the original writ order dated
27.09.2023 did not mandate retrospective
promotion. It is a settled principle of law
that retrospective promotion cannot be
granted as a matter of course, particularly in
the absence of clear direction or vacancy.

5.7. That, being aggrieved by the order
dated 02.08.2024, the answering respondent
preferred an appeal, which was registered as
Cont. App (C) No. 4 of 2024 (hereinafter
referred to as the Third Case).

5.8. That by order dated 25.03.2025
(Annexure-9 to the writ petition), the
Hon'ble Appellate Contempt Court set aside
the order dated 02.08.2024 passed in the
Contempt Case.

5.9. That, being aggrieved, the petitioner
preferred a Special Leave Petition before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, registered as SLP

Page 7 of 14

(C) Diary No. 64319/2025 (hereinafter
referred to as the Fourth Case).

5.10. That by order dated 05.12.2025
(Annexure-10 to the writ petition), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said
SLP, and consequently, the order passed by
the Hon'ble Appellate Contempt Court
continues to remain in force.

6. That in reply to paragraphs 1 to 9 of the writ
petition, it is most respectfully submitted that
the claims raised by the petitioner have already
been finally adjudicated by this Hon'ble Court
and thereafter examined up to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, and thus have attained
finality. The present writ petition is therefore
barred by the settled principles of finality of
litigation, res judicata, and constructive res
judicata, and is liable to be dismissed in limine.

It is further submitted that the petitioner,
having unsuccessfully pursued remedies in
earlier rounds of litigation, cannot be permitted
to re-agitate the very same issues under the
guise of the present writ petition, as the same
would amount to a clear abuse of the process of
law.

It is respectfully submitted that the
answering respondent has, in letter and spirit,
fully complied with the directions issued by this
Hon'ble Court in the earlier proceedings by duly
constituting a Review Departmental Promotion
Committee (DPC) and considering the case of
the petitioner. Upon such consideration, and in
the absence of any available vacancy in the
promotional cadre, the petitioner was granted
promotion by way of creation of a
supernumerary post as a one-time equitable
measure, thereby ensuring that no prejudice is
caused to him.

It is further submitted that the grant of
promotion through creation of a supernumerary
post is itself a special concession and cannot be
treated as conferring any additional or
consequential rights beyond what has been
specifically granted. The petitioner has already
derived the benefit of such consideration, and no
further claim survives.

It is a settled proposition of law that
promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of
right with retrospective effect, particularly in the
absence of a clear vacancy or statutory provision
permitting such retrospective operation. In the
present case, admittedly, no vacancy existed at
the relevant time, and therefore, the question of
granting retrospective promotion does not arise.

It is further submitted that the Review DPC,
being a duly constituted expert body, has taken
its decision in accordance with the applicable
rules and service jurisprudence, and the same
does not suffer from any arbitrariness, illegality,
or mala fide warranting interference by this
Hon'ble Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the above, it is evident that the
petitioner is seeking to reopen issues which
have already been conclusively settled, and is

Page 8 of 14

attempting to claim reliefs which are neither
legally sustainable nor permissible, and hence,
the present writ petition deserves to be
dismissed with costs.

7. That in reply to paragraphs 10 to 12 of the
writ petition, it is most respectfully submitted
that the allegations made therein are
misconceived, unfounded, and hence denied. It
is submitted that the answering respondent has
acted strictly in accordance with the prevailing
policies, service rules, and administrative
instructions of the State Government, ensuring
that no employee is deprived of his lawful rights.

It is further submitted that the State
Government has in place a well-defined policy
framework governing service conditions,
promotions, and regularisation. In terms of the
said policy, employees who were earlier granted
promotion on an ad hoc basis are being duly
considered for regularisation/confirmation,
subject to fulfillment of the prescribed eligibility
criteria and availability of sanctioned posts. The
said process is being carried out in a systematic
and uniform manner, and all eligible employees
are being extended the benefits as and when
they become due.

It is respectfully submitted that the
answering respondent has been consistently
undertaking all necessary administrative
exercises, including review of service records,
convening of Departmental Promotion
Committees, and compliance with applicable
norms, so as to ensure that no eligible employee
is denied his legitimate entitlements. In the
event any benefit has not yet been extended, the
same would be granted in due course in
accordance with law and policy, and therefore,
no adverse inference can be drawn against the
answering respondent.

It is emphatically denied that there has been
any arbitrariness, discrimination, or unequal
treatment in the actions of the answering
respondent. On the contrary, all actions have
been guided by the constitutional mandate
enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India, ensuring equality before
law and equal opportunity in matters of public
employment.

It is a settled principle of law that Article 14
embodies a positive concept of equality, and
cannot be invoked to claim parity in illegality or
to seek benefits contrary to rules. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has consistently held that
negative equality cannot be enforced, and an
individual cannot claim relief merely because
someone else may have been granted a benefit
erroneously.

It is further submitted that the petitioner has
failed to establish any instance of hostile
discrimination or violation of statutory
provisions, and the bald allegations made in the
writ petition are devoid of merit and
unsupported by any material on record.

Page 9 of 14

In view of the above, it is evident that the
answering respondent has acted in a fair,
transparent, and legally compliant manner, and
the claims raised by the petitioner are
unsustainable in law and liable to be rejected.”

However, at the time of hearing, Learned Addl. GA
submitted that as per direction of this Court, the review DPC was
constituted and the review DPC recommended the promotion of the
petitioner by creating supernumerary post. Learned Addl. GA further
submitted that in the order dated 27.09.2023 there was no specific
direction upon the respondents-State to give retrospective promotion to
the petitioner. So, at this stage, there is no scope for the petitioner to
go beyond the order of this Court and the guidelines, as referred by
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, would not assist the
petitioner to claim any additional advantage. So, Learned Addl. GA
prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. It was further submitted that
as a matter of right a person cannot claim promotion but the
Department considered his promotion and extended all benefits. So,
nothing survives for further adjudication.
6. The respondent-TPSC also filed counter affidavit. In para
No.5, the respondent-TPSC has asserted as under:
“5. That with reference to the statements made
at paragraphs No.5 of the writ petition, the
answering respondent state that the Tripura
Public Service Commission received a proposal
for concurrence towards promotion on Ad-hoc
basis to the vacant post of Handloom
Development Officer, Class-II (Group-B Non-
Gazetted) vide letter No.F.1(3-108)/
HR/DHHS/2022/15232 dated 23.12.2022.
Thereafter, a letter was sent to the Department
of Industries & Commerce and requested to
convene a review DPC after exercising taking
into account of the procedure as stated in Para-6
& 7 of the GA(P&T) Notification No. F.2(24)-
GA(P&T)/2021 dated 22.06.2021 vide
Commission's letter No.F.6(1152)-
SM/TPSC/2022 dated 05.01.2023. The
Department of Industries & Commerce informed
that the Govt. has accepted the recommendation
of the review DPC held on 09.01.2023 for
promotion of 5 (five) Senior Instructor
(Handloom)/ Inspector (Handloom) to the post
of Handloom Development Officer, Class-II

Page 10 of 14

(Group-B Gazetted) for the Directorate of
Handloom, Handicrafts & Sericulture under the
Department of Industries & Commerce on ad-
hoc basis and also requested for concurrence of
the Commission vide letter No.F.1(3-
108)/HR/DHHS/2022/15788 dated 10.01.2023.
Thereafter, the Tripura Public Service
Commission concurred the proposal of the
Department for promotion to the post of
Handloom Development Officer, Group-B
(Gazetted) for the Directorate of Handloom,
Handicrafts & Sericulture on ad-hoc basis as one
time measure as recommended by the Review
DPC held on 09.01.2023 subject to the condition
as mentioned in the Notification No. F.2(24)-
GA(P&T)/2021 dated 22.06.2021 vide
Commission's letter No.F.6(1152)-
SM/TPSC/2022 dated 16.01.2023.

The answering respondent further states that
in DPC Minutes dated 09.01.2023, with regard to
the petitioner, the DPC in para-7.1 has
mentioned as follows:-

"As per information made available to DPC,
Disciplinary Proceedings was contemplated
against Sri Narayan Chakraborty. Inspector
(HL) of Sl. No. 1 and the Commissioner of
Departmental Inquiries disposed off the
case with one minor penalty during last
consecutive 5 years. There was doubt in his
integrity and his ACRs grading is 'Average'.
So, Sri Chakraborty is treated as 'Un-fit for
promotion".

A copy of letter dated 23.12.2022 issued to
TPSC, a copy of the letter dated 05.01.2023
issued by TPSC, copy of letter dated 10.01.2023
sent to TPSC, copy of DPC Minutes dated
09.01.2023 and a copy of letter dated
16.01.2023 issued by TPSC are annexed hereto
and marked as Annexure-R/1, R/2, R/3, R/4 &
R/5.”

Referring the same, Learned Counsel, Mr. Pandey for the
respondent-TPSC submitted that there was no infirmity in the resolution
of the review DPC and the petitioner could not make out any case for
issuing any rule and urged for dismissal of this writ petition.
7. I have heard both the sides at length and perused the writ
petition and the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as the
counter affidavit filed by the State-respondents and the respondent-
TPSC.
8. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner was at serial No.1 in
the seniority list issued by the Department. However, his name was not
considered for promotion in the initial stage and under compelling

Page 11 of 14

circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court. This Court vide
order dated 27.09.2023 in WP(C) No.164 of 2023 disposed of the writ
petition. The relevant portion of the said order runs as follows:
“If that be so, upon consideration of the rival
submission of the parties and the relevant
pleadings taken note of in the foregoing
paragraphs, this Court is of the opinion that the
matter requires to be remitted to the competent
authority in the light of the decisions rendered
by the Apex Court in the case of Abhijit Ghosh
Dastidar (Supra) and also G.R. Meghwal (Supra).
The competent authority would constitute a
review DPC and place the case of the petitioner
with the relevant remarks and notings so that
his case can be reconsidered on the basis of the
remaining ACRs other than those adverse ACRs
for the relevant years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-
19 which remained uncommunicated. The
competent authority would also examine the
plea of the petitioner as regards the grant of 3rd
ACP from the date on which he completed 25
years of service in accordance with law. Let it be
made clear that this Court has not made any
observations as to whether the petitioner is fit
to be granted promotion which would depend
upon the decision to be taken by the review DPC
or 3rd ACP. Let such exercise be completed
within a period of 16(sixteen) weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.”


From the aforesaid observation of this Court, it appears that
when the matter was decided, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
considered the case of the petitioner and directed for constitution of
review DPC after considering the ACRs. The aforesaid order by this time
has attained finality. However, when that was not done, the petitioner
filed a contempt proceeding which was numbered as Cont.Cas(C) No.12
of 2024 and the same was disposed of on 02.08.2024. The co-ordinate
Bench of this Court at the time of disposal of the said Cont.Cas(C)
No.12 of 2024 made the observation in para No.6 which is as follows:
“[6] I find substance in the submissions of
learned counsel for the petitioner. In the
background circumstances explained above,
since the review DPC has recommended creation
of a supernumerary post to promote the
petitioner, the same should be given effect from
the date his juniors were promoted and not
prospectively otherwise, the legal right which
has accrued in favour of the petitioner upon the
decision of the review DPC in the light of the
directions passed by the writ Court, could be

Page 12 of 14

defeated. Let such promotion order be issued
within a period of six weeks from today from the
due date.”
Challenging the said order, the State-respondents preferred
an appeal which was numbered as Cont.App(C) No.4 of 2024 and the
Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 25.03.2025
set aside the order passed by Learned Single Judge in Cont.Cas(C)
No.12 of 2024. The operative portion of the said judgment and order
runs as under:
[23] Upon careful consideration of the facts
“
and legal provisions, this Court finds that under
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
the requirements of imposing punishment for
contempt, as mandated under the said provision,
orders though have not been passed but
cognizance has been taken and supplemental
order of writ is passed which is beyond the
scope of Section 12 of the Act and it amounts to
review of earlier order of writ.

[24] Accordingly, the impugned order dated
02.08.2024 is set aside. The contempt
proceedings against the appellant stand
quashed.”

From the aforesaid judgment and order of the Division
Bench of this Court, it appears that by the said judgment and order the
earlier order dated 02.08.2024 in Contempt petition was set aside.
Thus, the initial order dated 27.09.2023 sustained.
9. I have also perused the said order dated 27.09.2023 passed
in WP(C) No.164 of 2023. In the said order, nowhere the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court gave any specific direction regarding consideration
of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Handloom Officer giving
retrospective effect. So, beyond the order dated 27.09.2023, there is no
scope on the part of this Court, at this stage, to interpret the language
used in the said order in other manner. Further, it appears that in
pursuance of the order dated 27.09.2023, the review DPC met on
15.03.2024 and the review DPC in its minutes dated 15.03.2024

Page 13 of 14

( Annexure-5 ) disposed of the matters in issue of the petitioner. In para
Nos.6 and 9 the review DPC gave the following observation:
“6. Since there is no vacant post of Handloom
Development Officer, so the DPC recommends
for creation of 1 (one) Supernumerary post of
Handloom Development Officer (UR) for
promotion of Shri Narayan Chakraborty,
Inspector (HL) as one time measure.

9. The DPC recommended Shri Narayan
Chakraborty, Inspector (HL) for promotion on
ad-hoc basis to the post of Handloom
Development Officer, subject to creation of 1
(one) Supernumerary post (UR) as one time
measure following various guidelines in Cabinet
Notification No.F.2 (24)-GA (P&T)/2021 dated
22-06-2021, subject to final verdict of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.19765-
19767 of 2015.”

Since from the minutes of the review DPC it appears that
the said committee was constituted as per order passed by this Court
on 27.09.2023 which attained finality and in the said order nothing was
specifically mentioned that the case of the petitioner should be
considered giving retrospective effect, so, at this stage, there is no
scope on the part of this Court to go beyond the order of the Learned
Single Judge in the said WP(C) No.164 of 2023 and to make different
observation that the review DPC ought to have granted promotion to
the petitioner in the regular post.
10. In the opinion of this Court, the review DPC have considered
the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Handloom
Development Officer and also recommended for creation of
supernumerary post. So, the arguments advanced by Learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that the review DPC could not decide the
matter as per law and in accordance with the guidelines of the
Department of Personnel Training cannot be accepted at this stage.
Furthermore, at the time of deciding of WP(C) No.164 of 2023 on
27.09.2023, the co-ordinate Bench has dealt with the matter properly
and also discussed everything. So, in this writ petition, there is no

Page 14 of 14

scope on the part of this Court to give a different interpretation of the
said order passed by the Learned Single Judge. As already stated, the
review DPC did not make any observation that the promotion of the
petitioner to be considered from the retrospective date when his juniors
were promoted to the said post. So, the submission of the Learned
Senior Counsel that the present petitioner should be appointed against
the regular post and his juniors may be reverted back to the
supernumerary post cannot be accepted as valid and justified grounds.
Furthermore, this Court cannot go beyond the settled issue which has
already been decided by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in WP(C)
No.164 of 2023 dated 27.09.2023.
11. In the result, I find no merit in the writ petition and
accordingly, the same is dismissed/rejected. The petitioner is not
entitled to any relief in this writ petition in view of the observation made
by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.164 of 2023 dated
27.09.2023.
Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands
disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of .



JUDGE

















Snigdha
SNIGDHA
DAS
Digitally signed by
SNIGDHA DAS
Date: 2026.09.08
17:00:38 +05'30'