24/08 2026 AD/41/18 266312 NANDY (DISMISSED) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA/11685/2026 SRITANU MAITI VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Ms. Shrabonbi Sarkar, Advocate Ms. Umme Habiba Khatun, Advocate ……for the Petitioner Mr. Saikat Ray Chowdhury, Advocate Mr. Ankit Kumar Mishra, Advocate ……for the State 1. The petitioner is aggrieved that in spite of the fact that he is entitled to be promoted to the post of Joint Director of West Bengal Higher Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Service, he has not been granted such promotion. 2. This writ petition is limited to the fact that the petitioner has not been granted the promotion, which according to him, he is entitled to have been given back in 2020 or at least in 2022, when the authorities sought for a letter of willingness from him. 3. The impediment to the petitioner's prayers in this writ petition is that in 2021 a charge-sheet was framed against him and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The proceedings finalized by way of an order dated December 8, 2025, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been meted a punishment of "withholding of annual increments for a period of 5 years...." in terms of Rule 8(ii) of West Bengal Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1971. 4. This order of December 8, 2025, is the subject P a g e | 2 matter of another writ-petition which is pending adjudication before a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court. 5. If the petitioner is granted a promotion at this stage with retrospective effect from 2022 when his willingness was sought for, it would have the effect of nullifying and negating the order dated December 8, 2025. This would also in effect nullify the punishment meted out to the petitioner after a detailed disciplinary proceeding, which itself is under challenge in the other writ-petition being WPA/8352/2026. 6. In these circumstances as afore-stated, any order in this writ-petition directing the respondent authorities to grant the promotion or even consider granting the promotion to the petitioner would have the effect of deciding the pending writ-petition challenging the order dated December 8, 2025. 7. This is impermissible in law. 8. The petitioner would, however, be entitled to initiate an action, in the event, the other writ- petition is allowed and the order of punishment dated December 8, 2025, is set aside. However, till such time the order subsists, the petitioner cannot be considered for promotion. 9. In view of the afore-stated, WPA/11685/2026 fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Urgent Photostat Certified Copy of this order be given to the parties, if applied for. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.) P a g e | 3