SUBODH CHANDRA KATAKI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure -14 communication dated 8th August, 2012, by which his prayer for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Superintendent was rejected. For a ready reference, the aforesaid letter dated 8th August, 2012 is quoted below:

(2.) The petitioner has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th September, 2011. The respondent No.4 has also retired from service. Earlier he had filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.8894/2004 claiming seniority over the petitioner in reference to the promotion to the post of UDA way back in 1987. While entertaining the writ petition by order dated 6th December, 2004, while declining to restrain the official respondents from promoting the present petitioner, who was the respondent No.5 in the writ petition, to the post of Superintendent, observed thus: -

(3.) After the aforesaid development and because of the aforesaid observation, the official respondents did not conduct the selection for promotion to the post of Superintendent, although the process was initiated for the same. In this connection, Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statements made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition, in which it has been specifically stated that when the post of Superintendent had fallen vacant on 1st April, 2003, upon retirement of the earlier incumbent with effect from 31st March, 2003, process was initiated for promotion to the said vacant post and accordingly, ACRs etc. were also called for. However, because of the aforesaid writ petition filed by the respondent No.4, the process was stopped although there was no order restraining the official respondents to hold the selection.