DIGANTA CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions filed by the same petitioner are interconnected and thus have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. While in WP (C) No. 3263/2011 (the first writ petition), the challenge is to the promotion of the private respondents to the post of Superintending Engineer ahead of the petitioner with subsequent promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineer, the challenge in WP (C) No. 3238/2013 (the second writ petition), is the gradation list in the rank of Additional Chief Engineer so far as the same has shown the petitioner below the private respondents. Thus, the answer to the first writ petition will guide the outcome of the second writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Dr. B. Ahmed, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department and so also Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. J. Chutia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. I have also heard Mr. K. Das, learned counsel, representing the respondents No. 4, 5 to 10 and 14 and Mr. A.M. Bujarbarua, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5.

(3.) Although various issues like granting promotion to the private respondents, more particularly, the reserved category candidates without identifying the quantifiable datas on which the Apex Court has emphasized in its judgment (Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar, 2012 7 SCC 01) preceded by (M. Nagraj v. Union of India, 2006 8 SCC 212); improper assessment in respect of the selection conducted for promotion to the Superintending Engineer and Additional Chief Engineer etc. have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which have been sought to be countered by the learned counsel for the private respondents as well as the official respondents by raising the question of delay and latches, estoppels etc. coupled with the argument that quantifiable data is easily available on the basis of the materials on record, but without going into those details, the answer to the writ petitions is confined to the basic plea of excessive reservation as alleged to the deprivation of the petitioner, to the rightful promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer and thereafter Additional Chief Engineer. Be it stated here that presently there are two posts of Chief Engineer and taking into consideration the number of incumbents within the zone of consideration, the petitioner irrespective of his later date of promotion is now entitled to get consideration for such promotion along with some of the private respondents, the zone of consideration being in the ratio of 1:4.