BHABATOSH KUMAR ROY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions filed by the same petitioner are inter connected and accordingly they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement and order.

(2.) The petitioner, a member of the Assam Health (B) Services, is aggrieved by regulari-sation of services of the private respondents; their promotions to the next higher ranks and assignment of higher seniority to them above the petitioner. While in WP(C) No. 3118/2006, the challenge is in respect of Annexure-Q1 order dated 30.7.2005, by which the services of the private respondents Numbering four, have been regularized from their initial dates of appointment as Demonstrator of the Regional Dental College, in the second writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 1992/2006, the chall-enge is to the promotion granted in favour of the said respondents to the post of Assistant Professor and Professor. Further challenge made in the writ petition is also the gradation list dated 12.1.2006, by which the private respondents have been shown senior to the petitioner.

(3.) Shortly stated, the facts leading to filing of the instant writ petitions are that an advertisement bearing no. 3/1988 was published in 1988 by the Assam Public Service Commission (for short APSC) for the posts of Demonstrator and Resident Surgeon in the Regional Dental College, Guwahati. Pursuant to the selection conducted, the APSC recommended the selected candida-tes, which included the present petitioner and the respondents No. 3 to 6. After such selection, the respondents No. 3 and 5 were appointed as Demonstrator by order dated 5.9.89. On the other hand, the respondents No. 4 and 6 were appointed as Resident Surgeon on 29.3.1990. Be it stated here that the posts of Demonstrator and Resident Surgeon are in the same cadre. As against such appointment of the respondents, the petitioner was appointed as Demonstrator on 21.3.1990. Be it also stated here that in the select list, while the merit position of the petitioner was at Sl. No. 5, it was 1, 3, 4 & 7 respectively in respect of the private respon-dents.