DANI RAM DEWRI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is before this Court assailing the order dated 22.9.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 5198/2016. Through the said judgment, the learned Single Judge set aside the Divisional Level Selection Committee's resolution dated 13.1.2016 by which the appellant herein, who was the respondent No.5 in the petition, was recommended to be promoted, by holding the same as not sustainable. In that light, the learned Single Judge had directed reconsideration in terms of the claim made by the private respondent herein, who was the writ petitioner. The respondent No.5 to the writ petition therefore claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court in this appeal.

(2.) The issue is relating to the promotion from the post of Junior Assistant to that of Senior Assistant. The post at that point was earmarked for the general category. However, since the roster point 5 had been reserved for ST(P) and had remained unfilled and treated as backlog, a consideration was made to promote the appellant herein who belongs to the ST(P) community as the said post had been treated as a backlog vacancy. The private respondent herein claiming to be aggrieved by such decision was before the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition assailing the action taken and claimed to be entitled to be promoted as the general category candidate in the 7th position of the 100 point roster.

(3.) The learned Single Judge while taking note of the contention put forth essentially had adverted to the legal issue which had been put forth on behalf of the writ petitioner by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagaraj Vs. Union of India, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 212. Since in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that quantifiable data is to be secured before the reservation to be made and in the instant case, since the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that such exercise had not been done, was of the opinion that the promotion accorded to the appellant herein as a reserved category would not be justified.