AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 384 wordsB.B. Deb, J.—Heard Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. K.C. Mahanta, learned Government Advocate, Assam.
The petitioner entered in service as Demonstrator some time in October 1977. Subsequently with the recommendation of Assam Public Service Commission, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine by the Government vide Notification bearing No. HLB. 594/88/18 dated 17.3.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor in F.&S.M. Department by the Government of Assam vide Notification bearing No. HLB. 1967 95/Pt-III/60 dated 3.2.1999. A post of Professor in F.&S.M. Department became vacant due to the retirement of the incumbent Dr. M. N. .Gogoi some time in March 1999.
The petitioner''s grievance is that though he was eligible according to the relevant Rules, he was not promoted nor the post was filled up. However, subsequently the post was filled up vide Notification No. HLB. 1-60/2000/29 dated 22nd September, 2000 promoting the respondent No. 7, though he was junior to the petitioner. On perusal of the provisional Gradation list of the Doctors of Forensic and State Medicine Department as on 31.9.1994 it appears that the petitioner name figured at serial No. 6 as Associate Professor and the name of respondent No. 7, Dr. B. C. Rai Medhi at serial No. 7 as Assistant Professor. Both in length and service as well as in status the petitioner appears to be superior to the private respondent.
No counter affidavit has been filed by the State respondents. The related case record has been called for vide communication bearing No. 25, 198/203/RM dated 22.11.2002 of this Registry. But the State respondent has not produced any records, meaning thereby the averments and allegations supported by annexures made in the writ petition remain uncontroverted and thus I am constrained to hold that the private respondent No. 7, Dr. B. C. Rai Medhi who was junior to the petitioner was promoted without considering the case of the petitioner and as such, on this sole ground, the petition must succeed. The impugned order No. HLB, 150/2000/29A dated 22.9.2000 is hereby quashed so far it relates to private respondent No. 7, Dr. B. C. Rai Medhi and not others.
The writ petitioner stands disposed of. No order as to the cost.