JUDGMENT B. P. Banerjee, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge His Lordship B. C. Ray (as His Lordship then was) by which the learned trial Judge made the Civil Order absolute. 2. The fact of the case in short is that the writ petitioner-opposite party challenged an order of promotion of respondent Nos. 6, 7, and 8 in the writ application also a decision for recruitment directly to the post of Deputy Director (Socioe-Economic & Appraisal, Monitoring & Evaluation). The writ petitioner/opposite party Dr. Animesh Halder who is an M.A. (Economics) Cal., Ph.D., Wales, U. K. Joined the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority, Planning Directorate as Urban Economist on January 6, 1975 and on November 7, 1976 the Economic and Social Support Programme Cell (ESSP Cell) was created and the writ petitioner/opposite party was made as Officer-in-Charge/Special Officer to that ESSP Cell, but he was not required to perform any higher duty or responsibility. The other Urban Economists including the respondent No. 8 were placed under the control of the writ petitioner/opposite party in July, 1077. As Officer-in-Charge, ESSP Cell the writ petitioner performed additional duties at par with the Deputy Director of Planning. The writ petitioner/opposite party submitted a representation for elevating his position to the Deputy Director along with associated service benefits, but in vain. The post of Deputy Director (Economic Planning) was lying vacant. 3. It is also an admitted position that the writ petitioner/opposite party developed an economic development programme known as Small Scale Enterprise Programme (SSE Programme) and he was entrusted with the sole responsibility of implementing the programme. The said ESSP Cell became synonymous with Small Scale Enterprises Programme (SSE Programme) and the writ petitioner/opposite party became the Officer-in-Charge/Special Officer of the said SSE programme. It is also an admitted position that the 63rd Board Meeting of the C.M.D.A. held on September 3, 1979 approved the recommendation of the Service Committee Promotional Rules which were formulated at that time. The Service Committee's recommendation was thus approved in that 63rd meeting of the C.M.D.A. The writ petitioner/opposite party was holding the feeder post as Special Officer (ESSP Cell) to the promotional post of Deputy Director (Area-Planning and Development Control). In terms of the promotional rules the post of Additional Director of Planning and above are common promotional posts of all the Deputy Directors of Planning. 4. In terms of the promotional rules the post of Additional Director of Planning and above are common promotional posts of all the Deputy Directors of Planning. 4. On January 2, 1981 which was long after the 63rd Board Meeting of the C.M.D.A. SSE Programme was withdrawn from the writ petitioner with a plea to utilise his expertise more effectively in the field of Socio-Economic Planning, Appraisal, Monitoring and Evaluation. On February 24, 1981 the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were promoted in the post of Deputy Director of Planning (Area Planning and Development Control) although they were not holding the feeder post by depriving the writ petitioner who alone held the feeder post and thus the writ petitioner was deprived of such promotion and that by giving promotion to the respondent Nos. 6. 7 and 9 who were all juniors to the writ petitioner resulting in violation of Promotional Rules and thus the writ petitioner/opposite party was superseded. 5. Against such super-session and grant of such promotion to the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 9 the writ petitioner/opposite party filed a representation before the authority concerned and on March 1, 1982 the Directorate of Socio Economic Planning, Appraisal, Monitoring and Evaluation was created with the posts of Director, Deputy Director and those are exclusively for Economists. An advertisement was issued on March 7, 1992 for appointment of Director, Deputy Directors etc. although SSE Programme was withdrawn from the writ petitioner with the hoax of utilising his service more effectively in the field of Socio-Economic Planning Appraisal, Monitoring and Evaluation. 6. It is the case of the writ petitioner/opposite party that according to the prevailing rules the Deputy Director post is a promotional post, but the post of the Deputy Director (Socio Economic Planning, Appraisal, Monitoring and Evaluation) was singled out for advertisement with a view to appoint the respondent No. 8 who is junior to the writ petitioner. As a matter of fact he was appointed to that post on September 11, 1984 after conclusion of final hearing, but prior to delivery of judgment by the learned trial Judge. As a matter of fact he was appointed to that post on September 11, 1984 after conclusion of final hearing, but prior to delivery of judgment by the learned trial Judge. On March 28, 1981 the resolution of the 67th Board Meeting of the C.M.D.A. was supplemented regarding the existing promotional rules and that on January 31, 1983 at the 75th Board Meeting of C.M.D.A. there was a change of Recruitment Regulations in respect of Director, AIIE, by changing educational qualification from Economics to Engineering and Promotion of Engineers. 7. The judgment was delivered by the learned trial Judge in C.O. 11535 (W) of 1982 on December 14, 1984 making the Civil absolute. The appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the said judgment and order on February 22, 1985. 8. On February 22, 1990 with the leave of this Court the writ petitioner/opposite party was promoted to the post of the Deputy Director (Planning, Macro-Economics) with effect from January 31, 1983 whereas the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 9 who were juniors to the writ petitioner were promoted on February 24, 1981 and thus the writ petitioner's seniority was seriously affected. The learned trial Judge held that the order of promotion of the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 9 and the advertisement for direct recruitment designed to serve the vested interest in favour of the respondent No. 8 in violation of the promotional rules of the CM.D.A. and the Government Circulars. 9. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that at no point of time the writ petitioner was appointed as a Special Officer of the ESSEP and no such appointment letter was issued. But, it is the case of the appellant that it was by mistake the appellant has described the writ petitioner as Urban Economist and Special Officers of the ESSP Cell. 10. In the 63rd meeting of the C.M.D.A. held on September 3, 1979) the recommendation of the Service Committee was accepted and that is does not appear any bona fide reasons and/or grounds for changing the same in the subsequent meetings, Particularly, in the 71st meeting of the CM.D.A. by which they decided to fill up the post by direct recruitment. In the 63rd meeting of the C.M.D.A. held on September 3, 1979) the recommendation of the Service Committee was accepted and that is does not appear any bona fide reasons and/or grounds for changing the same in the subsequent meetings, Particularly, in the 71st meeting of the CM.D.A. by which they decided to fill up the post by direct recruitment. This has seriously prejudiced the case of the writ petitioner/opposite party inasmuch as it was crystal clear as has been rightly pointed out by the learned trial Judge that it has designedly made solely for the purpose of giving promotion to the respondent No. 8 to deprive the benefit to the writ petitioner/opposite party. 11. We have considered the respective submissions of the parties The learned trial Judge after careful consideration of the matter held that this recommendation of the Service Committee was considered at the 63rd meeting of the authority held on September 3,1979 and the recommendations were accepted in the following manner; (1) The recommendation of the committee were accepted with the modification that State Government norms for different categories of service should be followed regarding minimum number of years for earning eligibility to promotion; (2) The recommendations of the Committee were accepted, for cases where no promotional line was in existence in the organisation the recommendation as given by the Committee should be examined expeditiously and finalised within the next three months. Therefore, the promotional norms that have been recommended by the Service Committee appointed on the basis of the resolution adopted at the 56th meeting of the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority held on January 25, 1978 was accepted. It is pertinent to mention here that the 67th meeting of the C.M.D.A. held on March 28, 1981, the following modification were made regarding the principle and procedure of promotion: "Except for the cadres of Technical Assistants and Stenographers for which the norm of 5 years and 4 years respectively had already been accepted by the Authority, the norm of a minimum number of years to be spent in base posts for the purpose of earning eligibility for first promotion should be six years instead of eight years. The decision of the Authority taken in this regard in its 63rd meeting would stand modified to this extent. In all cases, promotion would, be subject to availability of vacancies". 12. The decision of the Authority taken in this regard in its 63rd meeting would stand modified to this extent. In all cases, promotion would, be subject to availability of vacancies". 12. The writ petitioner was undoubtedly the seniormost of the Urban Economists employed under the C.M.D.A. and he was the only economist having the Doctorate Degree. It is also clear and evident that the writ petitioner was appointed as Officer-in-Charge of Cell since its inception and the respondent No.8, Kalyan Roy along with some other urban Economists were placed under his supervision to work as an Urban Economists in the ESSP Cell under the Planning Directorate. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner was responsible for organising and developing the economic development programme known as Small Scale Enterprise Programme (SSE Programme) which was run exclusively under his supervision and control since its inception, i.e. from 1976, It is also clear and apparent that the writ petitioner rendered valuable service in developing this programme and this would appear from the office note dated December 11, 1980 given by the then Officer-on-Special Duty, C.M.D.A. and Chief Executive Officer, C.M.D.A. which has been stated in paragraph 10 of the writ application and not controverted either in the affidavit-in-opposition or in the supplementary affidavit-in-opposition sworn on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. 3, 4 and 5. It is also evident that the authorities concerned arbitrarily and in colourable exercise of their power withdrew the SSE Programme for the supervision and control of the petitioner on the mere plea that the expertised knowledge of the petitioner will be effectively utilised in the Socio Economic Planning Appraisal Unit and the same was assigned to a W.B.C.S. Officer as Additional Charge by Order No. 3064/C.M.D.A./2E-31/79, dated December 17, 1980, in order to deprive the writ petitioner from the promotional benefits provided under the promotional rules framed by the Service Committee and approved in its 63rd meeting of the C.M.D.A. The writ petitioner has been holding the post of Officer-in-Charge of ESSP Cell and was also appointed as Special Officer of the said Cell as would be evident from the letters of the Chief Executive Officer, the respondent No.3, dated May 27, 1980 and August 5, 1980 annexed as Annexures P3 and P4 of the affidavit-in-reply sworn by the writ petitioner on October 11, 1980, It has been tried to be stated in the affidavit-in-opposition in paragraph 5(c) sworn on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 by one Sri Manash Gobinda Chowdhury, Assistant Administrative Officer, C.M.D.A. that though the service committee recommended that the post of Special Officer, Small Enterprise Programme would be the feeder post to the post of Deputy Director of Planning (Area Planning and Development Control), it seems that basing his claim on the recommendation and alleging to be the Special Officer, Small Enterprise Programme, the writ petitioner tried to pay his claim to the post of Deputy Director of Planning (Area Planning and Development Control). It has also been further stated in sub-paragraph (d) of the said paragraph that the C.M.D.A. did not accept that recommendation. It has also been stated that at no point of time the writ petitioner was appointed or promoted or posted as Special Officer of Small Enterprise Programme and, as such, his claim to be considered for promotion to that post could not be entertained. In the supplementary affidavit-in-opposition, sworn on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in paragraph 4(h) it has been stated that through inadvertence the writ petitioner was wrongly described as Special Officer, SSE. Cell as well as SSE Programme. In the supplementary affidavit-in-opposition, sworn on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in paragraph 4(h) it has been stated that through inadvertence the writ petitioner was wrongly described as Special Officer, SSE. Cell as well as SSE Programme. It has also been stated that the feeder post of Deputy Director of Planning (Area Planning and Development Control was not Special Officer, Small Enterprise Programme but associated land Use Planner and Associated Architect Planner and a document has been annexed as Annexure 'X' to the said affidavit-in-opposition. This document, Annexure 'X' has been seriously challenged by the writ petitioner as a fabricated one. It does not bear the signature of any of the concerned authorities and as such it is an unauthenticated document. There is no affidavit forthcoming from the side of the respondent to controvert this statement. Moreover, it appears that the recommendation of the Service Committee was duly accepted by the C.M.D.A. in its 63rd Meeting held on December 3, 1070 wherefrom it appears that the feeder post of Deputy Director of Planning (Area Planning and Development Control) has been described as Special Officer (Small Enterprise Programme). Undoubtedly the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 did not hold the post of Special Officer, Small Enterprise Programme. On the other hand as has been stated clearly and which has not been controverted by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition that the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were holding the post of Associated Planner (Land Use) and Associated Planner (Architect) respectively which are the feeder post of Deputy Director (Land Design) respectively, In these circumstances the learned Judge held that the order of promotion that has been given on the 24th February, 1981 by the respondent No.3, Chief Executive Officer, C.M.D.A. to the respondents 6 and 7 are wholly illegal and bad being in utter contravention of the promotional norms laid down by the C.M.D.A. at its 63rd meeting held on September 3, 1979. The question of modification of the said resolution at the 67th meeting of the C.M.D.A. does not at all arise inasmuch as the 67th meeting of the C.M.D.A. was held on March 28, 1981, that is, after the aforesaid two promotions were given by the impugned order which has been annexed as Annexure 'E' to the writ petition, The learned Judge also of the opinion that he was unable to hold that the writ petitioner was not appointed as Special Officer, SSE Programme, as it is clear from the letters written to the respondent No.3, the then Chief Executive Officer, S. B. Roy, that the writ petitioner was the Special Officer to the said programme. This is also evident from the subsequent letter, dated August 5, 1980 of the respondent No.3 in the writ petition. These letters have been annexed as Annexures P3 and P4 to the said affidavit-in-reply. It is also curious to note in this connection that the authority concerned arbitrarily and in a most mala fide manner and in colour able exercise of power took away the work of SSE Programme from the writ petitioner who organised and developed this programme and gave it to a W.B.C.S. Officer by an order, dated December 17, 1980. It is also apparent from the letter Annexure 'D' issued by the respondent No.5, Director of Planning, that the work of Small Enterprise Programme is synonymous with the work of ESSP Cell. The writ petitioner is undoubtedly associated with this ESSP Cell from its inception and he efficiently discharged his duties as Officer-in-Charge of the said Cell. It is also evident that the writ petitioner's name was recommended by the then Director of Planning for appointment to the post of Deputy Director (Economic Planning). The recommendation was not at all considered and the writ petitioner in spite of his good and efficient service rendered was not considered for promotion to the said post of Deputy Director (Economic Planning) on the mere plea that the post was not approved. The recommendation was not at all considered and the writ petitioner in spite of his good and efficient service rendered was not considered for promotion to the said post of Deputy Director (Economic Planning) on the mere plea that the post was not approved. This plea, however, was repudiated in paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-reply to the supplementary affidavit-in-opposition sworn by the writ petitioner on September 12, 1983 where it has been specifically stated that the post of Deputy Director was created and the same was sanctioned and approved by the then Chairman of the C.M.D.A. Sri Bholanath Sen and then Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal and Ex-Officio Vice Chairman, Sri B. R. Ganguli which would be evident from the note, dated January 27, 1977. The authorities were asked to produce the said note before this Court. This was not produced before this Court. Therefore, the plea that the recommendation of the respondent No. 5 in the writ petition for promotion of the writ petitioner to the post of Deputy Director of Planning (Area Planning and Development Programme was not considered and the writ petitioner was illegally and arbitrarily deprived promotion to the said post. The learned Judge held that he was constrained to hold that the writ petitioner's case was not at all considered and he has been arbitrarily deprived from getting promotion to the said post. Not only that the respondent Nos. 6 and 7, who did not ever hold the feeder post of Special Officer, Small Enterprise Programme and who were junior in service to the writ petitioner and who did not possess the Doctorate Degree in Economics were promoted to the post of Deputy Director of Planning (Area Planning and Development Control). This is a clear case of mala fide exercise of power and arbitrary discrimination and victimisation of the writ petitioner for being considered for promotion to the said post as well as a complete norms that have been set down by the C.M.D.A. at its 63rd Meeting on September 3, 1979. 13. It was evident that the promotion of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to the writ petition to the post of Deputy Director was made on the basis of seniority in service and as the learned Judge said already that both those respondent Nos. 13. It was evident that the promotion of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to the writ petition to the post of Deputy Director was made on the basis of seniority in service and as the learned Judge said already that both those respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were juniors to the writ petitioner in service as such on the said ground also the impugned order of promotion, as Annexure 'E' to the writ petition amounts to flagrant contravention of the promotional norms fixed by the C.M.D.A. at its 63rd meeting. 14. The C.M.D.A. in spite of the norms laid down in the 63rd meeting which was also not varied at the 67th meeting of the C.M.D.A. held on March 28, 1981 that the post of Director and Deputy Director are to be filled up by promotion. The authorities concerned made an advertisement in the Amrita Bazar Patrika, dated March 7, 1982 inviting applications for promotion to the post of Deputy Director without considering the legitimate claim of the writ petitioner for being considered for promotion to the said post for direct recruitment to the said post of Director and Deputy Director (Socio Economic Planning, Appraisal, Monitoring and Evaluation) under the C.M.D.A. in utter contravention of Government Circular No. 5120 (60) W, dated October 17, 1977 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of West Benga1. In the said advertisement the qualification for both the posts of Director and Deputy Director were laid down as Post Graduate in Economics preferably with a Ph. D. Degree for the post of Director and for the post of Deputy Director the qualification laid down was a Post Graduate Degree in Economics and experience of eight years. The writ petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications for being promoted to the said post of Deputy Director, but to deny him the promotion to which he was entitled to under the extent rules of C.M.D.A. the advertisement was made. It has laid in paragraph 4(2) of the Supplementary affidavit sworn in August 10, 1983 that persons possessing such high qualification might not be available so the advertisement has been made. It has laid in paragraph 4(2) of the Supplementary affidavit sworn in August 10, 1983 that persons possessing such high qualification might not be available so the advertisement has been made. It appears that to make room for respondent No. 8 in the writ petition who is less qualified than the writ petitioner as well as much junior to him the authority concerned has modified the method for filling up the post by subsequently revising the procedure to the effect that the post of Director would be filled up by a promotion of Additional Director in the engineering stream or by direct recruitment and the qualification is either First Class M.A. in Economics or First Class Degree in Civil Engineering. The allegations as made by the writ petitioner in this regard it appears well founded inasmuch the change has been made solely with the object to deprive the writ petitioner for promotion to the said post of Deputy Director, even though the writ petitioner has not only a Post-Graduate Degree, but also is a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Wales and he has also acquired experience in the particular field by working there since 1975 in the ESSP Cell. It has been tried to be contended that there is no promotional post from the writ petitioner as he is a mere Urban Economist, but in accordance with the resolution of the C.M.D.A. steps would be taken to the open promotional channel of the Urban Economist without at all considering that the promotional channel of the Urban Economist to the post of Deputy Director (Socio Economic Planning Appraisal, Monitoring and Evaluation) are from Urban Economist, Economic Geographer and Statistician. The writ petitioner being the seniormost Urban Economist, is entitled to be promoted to the post of the Deputy Director (Socio Economic Planning Appraisal, Monitoring and Evaluation). This will be evident from Annexure ‘I’ to Annexure ‘p’ of the affidavit-in-reply to the writ petition sworn on December 11, 1982 by the writ petitioner. 15. Admittedly, during the pendency of this appeal the writ petitioner has already been appointed in the post of Deputy Director (Planning. Macro-Economics) with effect from January 31, 1983. The said appointment was made pursuant to the order, dated February 27, 1990 by a Division Bench of this Court. 16. 15. Admittedly, during the pendency of this appeal the writ petitioner has already been appointed in the post of Deputy Director (Planning. Macro-Economics) with effect from January 31, 1983. The said appointment was made pursuant to the order, dated February 27, 1990 by a Division Bench of this Court. 16. We are of the view that the learned trial Judge was right in holding that in the 63rd meeting of the C.M.D.A. the recommendation of the Service Committee was fully and finally accepted and that on the basis of the said decision the writ petitioner/opposite party was entitled to be appointed in the said post. 17. It also appears that the documents which were annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition does not appear to be genuine. The genuineness of such document was challenged by the writ petitioner. The learned trial Judge has dealt with the matter and came to the conclusion that the decision could not be relied on and we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the learned trial Judge as we are of the view that the learned Judge has considered the matter rightly and no case has been made out before us to interfere with such findings made by the learned trial Judge. 18. It was submitted before us that due to non-service of notice to the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 9 the writ petition is bound to fail. In the writ petition the challenge was thrown against an arbitrary and mala fide action of the authority who contested the same by filing an affidavit and sought to justify the order of promotion and advertisement for direct recruitment. The non-service of notice upon the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 9 was not taken up by the appellant before the learned trial Judge at the appropriate time. 19. It is a well-settled principle that non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties has to be pleaded at the initial stage and the appellant in not taking such objection before the learned trial Judge at the initial stage has waived such alleged irregularity. It is not the case that the said respondents who have made parties have come forward alleging that they have been seriously prejudiced and affected by the order of the learned trial judge. It is not the case that the said respondents who have made parties have come forward alleging that they have been seriously prejudiced and affected by the order of the learned trial judge. It was upon those respondents to come forward before this Court even without being a party by preferring an appeal and in that case such an order could liable to be set aside inasmuch as it was affecting the interest of them for not serving proper notice. It is a firmly established principle that a party may waive service of notice or summons by his own conduct. A party may waive service of notice or summons by entering appearance. Unless a party directly aggrieved by non-service come forward before this Court and makes a complaint against other parties who have entered appearance and contested the matter without raising any objection cannot agitate those points before us when they have waived such objection at the material point of time. It is the case when the appellant has abandoned objection before the learned trial judge it is no longer open to the appellant to turn out and take objection at the appellate stage; in other words if by words or by conduct he leads the other party to believe that he is definitely choosing the one course in preference to the other and in that belief to alter his petition for the worse, he is estopped, as against the other party, from after words approbating what he has thus reprobated and reprobating that he has thus approbated. These are the rules of pleadings. 20. The Supreme Court in the case of Himangshu K. Bose vs. J. P. Mitter, reported in AIR 1064 S.C. 1636 observed that unless a party appears and takes up a stand in the pleading of non-joinder or mis-joinder of party, the Court cannot take judicial notice of it and cannot reject the petition on that ground. 21. We are accordingly of the view that the learned trial Judge has considered the matter in its true and proper perspective and no case has been made out before us by the appellant to interfere with the decision of the learned trial judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Let a xeroxed copy of the above order be given to the parties on the usual undertaking. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Let a xeroxed copy of the above order be given to the parties on the usual undertaking. A. M. Sinha, J: agree. Appeal dismissed.