01/09 2026 AD/15/18 266312 NANDY (DO) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA/23236/2026 BAIDYANATH ORAON VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Mr. Subhrangsu Panda, Advocate Ms. Haritri Roy, Advocate Mr. Anupam Singha, Advocate ……for the Petitioner Mr. Pulakesh Bajpayee, Sr. Advocate Ms. Manisha Paswan, Advocate ……for the State 1. Affidavit of service as filed be kept with the record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved that his representation for promotion from the post of Deputy Director to the post of Joint Director, made sometime in February 2026, has not been considered. 3. As submitted by Mr. Panda, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, there is no rule or applicable provision for such promotion, on account whereof he has made the representation. 4. In view of the representation not having been considered, I direct respondent no. 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.02.2026, in accordance with law and statutory rules framed by the State Government in this regard and upon giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing with adequate prior notice, within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 5. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case, and consideration of the representation will not create any right or equity P a g e | 2 in favour of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. 6. If there is no specific rule, the applicable rules framed by the State Government in this regard shall be followed. 7. With these observations, the writ-petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)