(1.) HEARD Mr. K.S. Kynjing, learned Advocate General, Meghalaya, assisted by Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned senior GA, appearing on behalf of the appellants, and Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, who were writ petitioners in WP(C) No.40(SH)/2006.
(2.) AS many as seven persons came, as petitioners in WP(C) No.40(SH)/2006, with the grievance that under the law, though, unless the authority concerned certifies that no vacancies have arisen in a given year and no suitable candidate is available, it is mandatory to prepare and finalize a yearly panel for promotion and consider the cases of persons, who fall within the zone of consideration for promotion during the year concerned, no exercise in this regard has been carried out by the appellants and in the consequence thereof, the petitioners promotion to the posts of Inspector of Excise stood denied. The writ petitioners, therefore, sought for directions to be issued to the respondents in the writ petition, who are appellants in this appeal, to make promotion on the basis of gradation list of Sub -Inspector of Excise published on 28.8.2003. During the pendency of the writ petition, since four of the said seven petitioners received promotion to the posts of Inspector of Excise, only three persons remained as petitioners in the said writ petition.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the directions given to the present appellant to till up seven vacant posts by considering the cases of the writ petitioners/respondents herein within the specified period of sixty days this appeal has been preferred. In the meanwhile, the Draft Rubes, which the impugned judgment referred to, have been finalized and the same have been notified on 10th August, 2010, the Rules being called Meghalaya Excise (Subordinate) Service Rules, 2010. The provisions of these Rules are not under challenge before us. We are, therefore, concerned with the directions, which have been given by the learned Single Judge, on 26.11.2008, while disposing of the writ petition.