00.10.2026 Item No. Court No.30 g.b. High Court at Calcutta In The Circuit Bench at Port Blair Appellate Side (Via Video Conference) From Principal Bench CPAN 51 of 2026 With RVW/16/2026 (CAN 1/2026) In WPA 533 of 2024 Subrata Bachar Vs. Kamaleshwar Rao S, IAS, The Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor & Ors. Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, Advocate (VC) Ms. Vinita Devi …for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate (VC) …for the Respondents In Re: RVW 16 of 2026 1. The review application has been preferred by the respondent/petitioner herein along with CAN 1 of 2026 which is an application praying for condonation of delay of 260 days. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that no sufficient cause for the delay has been stated/or made out and as such the delay in the present case cannot be condoned and the CAN 1 of 2026 is liable to be dismissed. 2 3. The review application has been preferred praying for review of judgement and order dated 16.12.2025 passed in WPA 533 of 2024, wherein the respondent/petitioner has prayed for review on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record as the said judgement is contrary to the law laid down in Union of India Versus Manpreet Singh Poonam ETC in Civil Appeal No. 517 /518 of 2017 wherein the Supreme Court held has follows:- "We do not know of any law or any rule under which a promotion is to be effective from the date of creation of the promotional post after a post falls vacant for any reason whatsoever, a promotion to that post should be from the date the promotion is granted and not from the date on which such post falls vacant. In the same way when additional posts are created, promotions to those posts can be granted only after the Assessment Board has met and made its recommendations for promotions being granted. If on the contrary, promotions are directed to become effective from the date of the creation of additional posts, then it would have the effect of giving promotions even before the Assessment Board has met and assessed the suitability of the candidates for promotion. In the circumstances, it is difficult to sustain the judgment of the Tribunal." 4. It is case of the petitioner that vide the judgement under review, the Court directed to give promotion from the date of recommendation of the DPC. It is 3 stated that it is thus contrary to the said view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thus prays for review by way of modification. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the Court overlooked the fact that Promotion is governed by rules in force on date of consideration, not date of occurrence of vacancy. Here vacancy arose on 04.02.2022 on death of Dheeraj Ram, DPC held on 28.06.2024, but approval was not granted and RR amendment was initiated on 08.04.2024. Therefore, new RR will apply. In this case old RRs dated 10.04.1989 was applied which is perverse in the eyes of law and has thus prayed for review of the impugned judgement. 6. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that the judgement in Manpreet Singh Poonam (Supra) relied upon is not applicable to the facts and circumstances, which was before the Court while passing the judgement dated 16.12.2025 in WPA 533 of 2024. 7. Regarding the observations and findings of this Court in the judgement dated 16.12.2025, this Court finds, no error apparent on the face of the record and as such no interference by way of review is called for. 8. RVW 16 of 2026 along with CAN 1 of 2026 is disposed of. 4 9. The contempt application be listed before the next Circuit at Port Blair. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)