SUBHASH KUMAR ROY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review application has beer, filed for review of the judgment and order dated 1.4.97 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 26 of 1996 and others.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the legality and validity of the Notification No. VFV. 1527 89/92 dated 27.1.92 issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Veterinary Department was under challenge in the Civil Rules. By the said notification seven officers, who were working an Assistant Rural Dairy Extension Officers were promoted to the post of Rural Dairy Extension Officers and other equivalent grades. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties disposed of those writ petitions on 21.11.95, quashed the aforesaid notification and directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion giving due consideration to his seniority and merit. Review applicants; were all parties to the above Civil Rule on whom notices were served. Review applicantsibeing aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge preferred appeals before this Court and this Court by judgment and order dated 1.4.97 dismissed the writ appeals. Review applicants/writ appellants, who were respondents in the writ petition were selected for promotion and in the above selection process writ appellants were also found unsuitable. No record was produced by the Government, on the contrary, the learned Government Advocate on the date of hearing produced a copy of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 44.96 on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. This Court accepted the said copy to be a copy filed before this Court. In that affidavit a statement was made by one A.B. Roychowdhury, whose identity was not disclosed, In the affidavit, said respondent made the following statement:

(3.) The review applicants sought to rely upon a document dated 27.12.90, a commimication between the Director, Dairy Development Department, Assam and the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Vety. Dairy etc. Department, Guwahati forwarding two lists of officers from panel of the provisional gradation list for promotion to the rank of Asstt. Director/ SMS. According to tbs review applicants this documents was not available to them at the time of hearing hence they could not produce the same before this Court at the time of hearing of the writ appeals. As stated earlier, no reason was assigned as to why the above documents could not be procured by them siince the Government already indicated by its affidavit that in the absence of essential records, relating to promotion no verification could be made. Admittedly, the review applicantts have knowledge about the statements mads by the Government respondent but no reason or description was given as to why the above documents could not be produced before hearing of the appeal.