JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondent No.4 and Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondent No.1, 2 and 3 as reflected in the communication dated 29.08.2016 [Annexure-22 to the writ petition] and in the communication dated 30.08.2016 [Annexure-23 to the writ petition]. According to the petitioner, those decisions are not informed and hence arbitrary. Thus the petitioner has urged this court for quashing those communications dated 29.08.2016 and 30.08.2016. Further, the petitioner has urged for directing the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 to consider his promotion/appointment to the post of Professor in the department of Dentistry. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioner is working under the respondent No.1 as the Associate Professor from 01.11.2012. According to the petitioner, his performance is without blemish. Earlier, the petitioner had worked under the respondent No.1 as the Assistant Professor. By the memorandum dated 20.07.2016 [Annexure-A to the writ petition] ten Associate Professors who were working in the Medicine, ENT, Surgery, Ophthalmology, O.B.G., Pediatrics, Pharmacology, FSM, Pathology and Community Medicine were appointed to the post of Professor in the scale of pay of Rs.37,400-67,400/- with grade pay of Rs.10,000/- with the special allowance of Rs.12,000/- per month. But the contractual remuneration was fixed at Rs.1,50,000/- with standard deduction, if any. During that exercise though the petitioner had all the required qualifications including the Master of Surgery (MDS) with specialty in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, the petitioner’s case was not considered for promotion. The petitioner approached the respondents several times for considering his promotion by undoing the injustice that had been done to him. But without any positive yield. 4. From the communication dated 29.08.2016 [Annexure-22 to the writ petition] the petitioner has gathered that since his term as the Assistant Professor was not extended after expiry of one year, his case was not considered in that exercise. One Dr. Vijayendra Pandey was appointed as the Professor of Dentistry for a short duration on contractual basis, but the said appointment was cancelled as the Society, the respondent No.1 considered his service was not required further. One Dr. Vijayendra Pandey was appointed as the Professor of Dentistry for a short duration on contractual basis, but the said appointment was cancelled as the Society, the respondent No.1 considered his service was not required further. From the communication dated 30.08.2016 [Annexure-23 to the writ petition] the petitioner has further gathered that his case was not considered for the same reason. After expiry of the period of one year, the contractual term, the petitioner’s engagement was not considered at that point of time. It appears that on 08.09.2016 the petitioner has made a representation to the Chief Executive Officer, Society for Tripura Medical College & Dr. BRAM Teaching Hospital, the respondent No.3 to consider his promotion to the post of Professor in the department of Dentistry. But the said representation did not fetch any positive yield. In contrast to what has been communicated to the petitioner by the communications dated 29.08.2016 and 30.08.2016, the petitioner has stated nothing whether at the relevant point of time the petitioner was in service, or not, as the Associate Professor. If someone is not holding the Feeder Post at the relevant point of time of consideration it is not expected that he will be promoted to the higher post even not by contemplation. But by the memorandum dated 01.12.2015 [Annexure-11 to the writ petition] the petitioner was given extension to the post of Associate Professor with retrospective effect from 01.11.2014 to 31.10.2016 on contractual basis. But the physical reality had confronted the exercise. It appears that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was not in service and hence his case was not considered. 5. Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has a distinguished career but he was treated arbitrarily for extraneous considerations. In various phases, he suffered engineered hurdles in his career and that affected his career with serious detriment. There is no dispute that the department of Dentistry under the respondent No.1 consists of one Professor, one Associate Professor and two Assistant Professors. The petitioner had been occupying the post of Associate Professor which is the feeder post for promotion/appointment to the post of Professor. There is no dispute that unless the qualifying service in the grade of Associate Professor is complete, nobody can be considered for promotion/appointment to the post of the Professor. As it was expected, Mr. The petitioner had been occupying the post of Associate Professor which is the feeder post for promotion/appointment to the post of Professor. There is no dispute that unless the qualifying service in the grade of Associate Professor is complete, nobody can be considered for promotion/appointment to the post of the Professor. As it was expected, Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 has pointed out that even though the exercise was taken in the year 2015, but the petitioner’s case could not be considered as he was not in the post of Associate Professor at that time. But immediately on the next exercise, his case was considered as he was given the appointment to that post retrospectively. His performance was not at all satisfactory as observed by the Departmental Promotion Committee on appreciation his ACRs. Mr. Datta, learned counsel has referred to one memorandum dated 24.03.2017 where the respondent No.3 has observed as under: “If the performance/service of Dr. Manik Saha is found not to be satisfactory, he will be reverted to the original post of Assistant Professor without any further correspondence nor will he be allowed to continue to the elevated post after completion of the stated provisional period.” 6. This court does not know how the petitioner reacted after receipt of the said memorandum dated 24.03.2017 as no records is available before this court. Mr. Datta, learned counsel has produced the minutes of the proceeding of the Departmental Promotion Committee [DPC] held on 16.02.2017 in the chamber of the Principal, Tripura Medical College for consideration of recommendation of cases for promotion/confirmation/eligibility to various teaching posts under the said Society. As it transpires from the records that the petitioner’s case was considered but his ACR grading was found below the bench mark. It appears from the para-7 of the said minutes that the DPC has followed the policy which is as under: “Since the promotion is to be made by the method of selection, the DPC adopted the criteria regarding merit-cum-seniority in case of selection posts & carefully examined the Status of publication, experience as per MCI norms and A.C.R of the faculty’. For induction to Professor Post from Associate Professor post and for induction to Associate Professor post from Assistant Professor post, the bench Mark has been treated as “Very Good”.” But the petitioner had been awarded only ‘good’ after assessing his performance. This meeting was held after filing of the writ petition and the petitioner was not considered because he could not achieve the bench mark as required for the promotion to the post of Professor. But at the same time it is true that the performance report (ACR) of the petitioner as assessed during the DPC was not supplied to the petitioner but that was considered by the DPC held on 16.02.2017. Though those letters were not brought on record either by the petitioner or by the respondents but, since the records have been produced before this court, this court has taken those records into cognizance. The petitioner has been assessed below the bench mark by the DPC without providing a copy of the adverse ACR. The procedure as follows is absolutely arbitrary being against the principles of natural justice. 7. The fairness in action demands that when some materials against one Officer or the employee is considered against him and an adverse decision is arrived at, he must be given opportunity to place his views in respect of such observation. But in this case that has not been done. Unilateral documents (ACRs) created by the Supervisory Officer has been taken into consideration and hence this court is of the view that the non-consideration is unsustainable in view of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the Society, the respondent No.1 comes under the meaning of the state vis-a-vis Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the consideration of the DPC in respect of the petitioner for promotion/appointment to the post of Professor in the department of Dentistry under the Society is interfered with and set aside. 8. The respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are hereby directed to give the copy of the ACRs to the petitioner within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order to the respondent No.3 and the petitioner shall be given another 15(fifteen) days time for submitting his representation. The representation shall be carefully scrutinized and thereafter a fresh decision has to be taken about the grading of the petitioner. The representation shall be carefully scrutinized and thereafter a fresh decision has to be taken about the grading of the petitioner. If it is found by the DPC that the petitioner’s grading has been enhanced to the ‘very good’, the petitioner shall immediately be given promotion/appointment to the post of Professor in the department of Dentistry. The entire exercise has to be completed within a period of 2(two) months from the day of submitting the representation by the petitioner. 9. With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. The documents as placed by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 shall be made part of this record. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3.