The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS v. Shri.P.V.Krishna Narayan Rao

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/11/2025 The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Vs.

Shri P. V. Krishna Narayan Rao Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the petitioners Ms. Anjili Nag, Sr.Adv.

Ms. K. Bhawani ... for the respondent June 17, 2025 [SR] Item No.6 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. The respondent had applied for the post of Assistant Town Planner Gr.II under the department of Town & Country Planning, Andaman Public Works Department. According to the Schedule-III of the Recruitment Rules, the method of recruitment to such post provided that 50% was to be done by promotion, failing which by deputation including short term contract and 50% was to be done by direct recruitment. Learned Tribunal came to an erroneous conclusion that first recruitment was to be done by promotion and only thereafter the question of direct recruitment could arise. In the instant case, a person was recruited by promotion to the said post. Then, the said post felt vacant.

The petitioner applied for recruitment through promotion.

recruitment by promotion or by direct recruitment. The Tribunal failed to consider this aspect and erroneously quashed and set aside the decision of the authorities dated 06.02.2020, order dated 07.10.2020 passed by the Chief Engineer, APWD and directed the respondents to fill up the posts of Assistant Town Planner Grade II by adopting the method of promotion as per the Recruitment Rules of 2013 and to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the said post, if otherwise found fit.

Learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent denies the allegations and submits as follows. The Recruitment Rules never stated that a post that was filled up by direct recruitment, if thereafter fallen vacant, could be filled up only by direct recruitment and not by promotion. If the said vacant post is filled up by promotion, the next vacancy could fairly be filled up by direct recruitment, thus maintaining the ratio of 1:1. Moreover, there is no stipulation made in the Recruitment Rules that either promotion or direct recruitment is to be preferred as the first mode of recruitment.

From a plain reading of the relevant Rules of Recruitment including Clause 10 of Schedule III, it does not appear that a particular post is to be earmarked for recruitment either by promotion or by direct recruitment.

It also does not appear that either promotion or direct recruitment is to be preferred as the first mode of recruitment. The only stipulation is that the recruitment should be done in the ratio of 1:1.

Thus, the impugned order and the directions passed therein do not violate the Recruitment Rules. As such, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.

In view of the time stipulation made in the impugned order, let the respondents' case for appointment be considered within three months from the date of communication of this order.

As the writ petition is being disposed of without calling for affidavits, the allegations leveled against the respondents shall be deemed to have been denied.

Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsels for the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

( Jay Sengupta, J. ) (Bivas Pattanayak, J. )