SIDDHARTHA DEBBARMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.C. Nath, learned Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) ADVERTING to the fact of the case, the petitioner and the private respondents were appointed as LDC by Annexure -2 order dated 28.8.82. The tentative seniority list of LDC was published on 23.8.83 and admittedly the petitioner was shown senior to the private respondents. The tentative seniority list was finalized by publishing the final seniority list as on 15.7.87. In the final seniority list also, the petitioner was shown senior to the private respondents. To be precise, while the petitioner was shown at Sl. No. 125, the private respondents were shown at Sl. Nos. 127, 130 and 131 respectively.

(3.) AFTER showing the petitioner as senior to the private respondents in two successive grades i.e. LDC and UDC, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Accountant by A -7 order dated 21.9.93. Although the petitioner has not annexed the orders of promotion of the private respondents, but from the impugned seniority list of Accountant, it appears that they were promoted by order dated 29.9.93. Thus, as per the orders of promotion also, the petitioner was promoted prior in point of time than the private respondents. It is stated that out of 3 private respondents herein, the respondent No. 3 was not promoted as Accountant and accordingly, his name did not figure in the impugned seniority list.