CHENIRAM BORAH Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the above writ petitions are based on same set of facts and are linked to one another. Thus they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the writ petitions are in very narrow campus. When one set of writ petitioners have assailed the legality and validity of the officiating promotion granted in favour of the private respondents who are writ petitioners in another batch of writ petitions, the later batch of writ petitioners have assailed the legality and validity of the orders by which their officiating promotions have been cancelled. Claim for officiating or regular promotion on the basis of DPC held about three years back have also been made. Some seniority disputes have also been raised. As to whether the quota for promotion for two different groups was correctly assessed or not has also been made an issue. However, the real issue involved is as to whether the officiating promotion was correctly made or not. The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petitions are narrated below. WP(C) No. 128 (K)/2004

(3.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is working as Junior Engineer (Housing) under the respondents making a grievance against the officiating promotions to the posts of SDO, PWD (Class-I gazetted) granted in favour of the respondents No. 5 to 12 by he impugned notifications dated 21.6.2004, 25.6.2004, 28.6.2004, 29.6.2004,4.7.2004 and 11.7.2004. A further prayer has been made to promote the petitioner as SDO from the date his juniors were so promoted. Placing reliance on the Annexure-4 seniority list of Diploma Holders Junior Engineers (Civil) published by Annexure-4 Notification dated 31.5.2004 in which the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 27, it is the case of the petitioner that he is senior to the respondents No. 6 to 12 whose seniority positions are at serial No. 110, 47, 67, 72, 115, 34 and 82 respectively. The name of the respondent No. 5 does not figure in the said seniority list.