JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the official respondents. 2. This is the second ground of litigation initiated by the petitioner. The petitioner was due to be promoted to the post of Office Superintendent [OS in short] inasmuch as he was in the feed grade of Accountant. That apart as per the final seniority list, the petitioner was the senior most in the grade of Accountants. On 03.07.2012, the DPC was convened for consideration of the eligible candidates for making recommendation for appointment to the post of the OS. According to the recruitment rules, for appointment to the post of the OS on promotion, the candidates must have the certificate of completing accounts training. While recommending for promotion to the said post, the DPC placed the petitioner’s case under ‘sealed cover’ as there was some confusion whether the petitioner had passed the accounts training or not. But what surprisingly has followed thereafter that the respondent No.4 who was admittedly junior to the petitioner in the grade of the accountant was appointed as the OS. The petitioner had passed the accounts training in the year 2004, much before the day when the DPC was convened. The relevant particulars of the petitioner and the respondent No.4 can be had from the table as provided below : Name Date of Birth Qualification Joining as Accountant Date of confirmation as UDC Recommended by DPC for OS Sri Kalyan Debbarma 18.02.1960 H.L.S.C. 07.04.1989 18.02.1999 Yes, in 2012 Sri Chitta Debbarma 26.07.1962 Madhyamik 01.03.1997 03.09.2004 3. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner had approached this court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.284 of 2014 which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 04.07.2015. From the said judgment, this court gathers that the DPC was again convened on 20.09.2013 for filling up of one UR vacancy in the grade of the OS and at that time, one Pankaj Kumar Ghosh was recommended for promotion to the post of OS against the said vacancy. Finally, this court has observed as under : “5. It is an admitted position that there were two posts of Office Superintendent, one for U.R. and the other for S.T. It is not clear whether both the posts are now occupied or not. Finally, this court has observed as under : “5. It is an admitted position that there were two posts of Office Superintendent, one for U.R. and the other for S.T. It is not clear whether both the posts are now occupied or not. The petitioner also did not array in the writ petition the persons who are promoted in the meantime. So far as the DPC dated 03.07.2012 and DPC dated 20.09.2013, it appears that Kalyan Debbarma’s name was considered but he has not given promotion though he cleared accounts-cum-administrative training and has got other requisite qualifications. There is no reason at all for withholding the promotion of the petitioner. The respondents are therefore directed to give promotion to the petitioner to the post of Office Superintendent immediately if there is a vacant post with all service benefits from the date the promotion was due to him as per the recommendation of DPC dated 03.07.2012.” 4. In terms of the said judgment and order when the subsequent vacancy arose, the petitioner was appointed on promotion to the post of OS on 16.08.2016 and the petitioner in terms of the said order joined in the said post on 18.08.2016. The petitioner was expected that at least his seniority will be maintained in the grade of OS. But when the tentantive seniority list was published, to his utter dismay the petitioner had discovered that he had been shown junior to the respondent No.4 without any rhyme and reason. He filed the representation to the competent authority on 04.02.2017 but the same was discarded and the final seniority list was published showing the petitioner junior to the respondent No.4. Hence, the petitioner has approached this court again urging that his promotion to the post of OS shall be treated at least from the date when the respondent No.4 was appointed. 5. Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been treated with hostile discrimination as the DPC was not authorised to place his case under ‘sealed cover’. When the sealed cover procedure can be adopted, it is by now is well-settle various administrative orders. Whether someone has got the requisite qualification or not, is firstly to be checked by the department and on such verification, the petitioner shall be treated as eligible to be the part of the zone of consideration. When the sealed cover procedure can be adopted, it is by now is well-settle various administrative orders. Whether someone has got the requisite qualification or not, is firstly to be checked by the department and on such verification, the petitioner shall be treated as eligible to be the part of the zone of consideration. Then, the DPC may cross verify the facts. If at all there was any confusion about the fact that whether the petitioner had passed the accounts and administrative training, this information could have been sought by the DPC from the appointing authority. Without doing that, in breach of the well laid procedure, the petitioner’s case was placed under ‘sealed cover’ and no post was kept vacant till opening of the sealed cover. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel has emphatically submitted that there was no dispute as regard whether the petitioner had passed the accounts and administrative training in the year 2004, much before the day when the DPC was convened. As such, the petitioner ought to have been promoted from the day at least from the day when the respondent No.4 was appointed. 6. From the other side, Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that in the earlier writ petition this court had observed that the petitioner would be promoted to the post of OS immediately, if there is a vacant post, with all service benefits from the date of promotion as per the recommendation of the DPC dated 03.07.2012. When the subsequent vacancy was available to the respondents No.1 and 2, they appointed the petitioner in the post of OS. Thus, the petitioner was appointed to the post of OS on 16.08.2016 and as such, the petitioner cannot have any grievance legitimate or otherwise. It has been observed that the facts are mostly admitted, in such circumstances, the following questions fall for consideration of this court : (i) Whether the judgment and order dated 04.07.2015 creates any bar for the petitioner to claim retrospective promotion to the post of OS at least from the day when the respondent No.4 was appointed or from the date when the recommendation was made by the DPC? (ii) Whether the accounts and administrative training have anything to do with the seniority? The question No.(ii) has been framed as Ms. Lodh, learned Addl. (ii) Whether the accounts and administrative training have anything to do with the seniority? The question No.(ii) has been framed as Ms. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. has emphatically submitted that the respondent No.4 passed the accounts and administrative training before the petitioner. This court having keenly read the direction given in the judgment and order dated 04.07.2015, is of the opinion that the respondents have mis-constructed the direction of this court. The direction is clear and unambiguous. It says if there was a vacant post, the petitioner be appointed on promotion to the post of OS immediately with all service benefits from the date the promotion as fallen due to the petitioner as per the recommendation of the DPC dated 03.07.2012. It has further provided that even if the vacancy is available subsequently, the promotion must be given retrospectively from the day when the recommendation of the DPC was made i.e. 03.07.2012. There cannot be any plea on ambiguity. The direction is amply clear that the promotion must be given with retroactive operation from the day when the DPC recommended the name of the petitioner and put the said recommendation so far the petitioner is concerned under sealed cover. 7. Having observed thus, the respondents are directed further to give the petitioner promotion to the post of OS at least from the day when the respondent No.4 was appointed with all service benefits. If necessary, the respondents may create a supernumerary post for the period between the day when the respondent No.4 was appointed and the day when the petitioner was appointed as the O.S. i.e. 16.08.2018 to regularise the cleavage that has been created by the respondents themselves. The other question that has been raised is absolutely without any substance. There are general principles for determining the seniority which does not include the qualification. The qualification may be an essential requisite to come within the zone of consideration along with seniority but that cannot be a determinant for purpose of seniority and as such, there is no substance in the objection as raised by the respondents No.1 and 2. 8. Hence, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. The above direction shall be implemented within 3[three] months from the day when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order to the respondents No.1 and 2. However, there shall be no order as to costs.