WP(C) 8713/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr M U Mahmud, learned counsel appearing for the petitione r. Also heard Mr G Soren, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respond ent Nos 1, 2 & 3. 2. Although it is revealed from the Office Note dated 12.10.2006 th at service on the private respondent No 4 is complete, she has not appeared and participated in the present proceeding. 3. The petitioner who was appointed as a Sister Tutor by appointmen t order dated 26.9.1987 is before the Court challenging the order of promotion t o the post of Matron given to respondent No 4 on 31.10.2005 and also a further o rder dated 17.11.2005 directing the respondent No 4 to take over the charge of t he post of In charge Principal of the School of Nursing under Silchar Medical Co llege (for short, ’SMC’) from the writ petitioner. The petitioner is also seeking a direction for promotion to the post of Matron prior to respondent No 4 and for further direction to enable her to continue as In charge Principal, to which post she was posted on 2.1.2003. 4. Mr M U Mahmud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner subm its that the writ petitioner was appointed to the teaching post of Sister Tutor on 26.9.1987 whereas the respondent No 4 was appointed to the teaching post of S ister Tutor on 10.7.2003 about 16 (Sixteen) years after the writ petitioner. 5. It is further contended that while considering the Sister Tutors for promotion to the post of Matron, the eligibility criteria is laid down thro ugh an Executive Guideline specified for appointment to the post of Principal wh ich post is equivalent to the post of Matron. According to the Guideline, 6 (six ) years minimum teaching experience is needed for an M.Sc Nursing Degree Holder and 8 (Eight) years minimum teaching experience is required for a B.Sc Degree Ho lder for being considered for promotion. It is accordingly, contended that as th e writ petitioner is a B.Sc Degree Holder and the respondent No 4 is an M.Sc Deg ree Holder, they were required to fulfill the minimum years of service as Sister Tutors before they could be considered for promotion to the post of Matron whic h is equivalent to the post of Principal. 6. Mr Mahmud further submits that as respondent No 4 was promoted t o the post of Sister Tutor on 10.7.2003, by the time her case was considered for promotion to the post of Matron and the impugned promotion order dated 31.10.20 05 was issued promoting the respondent No 4 to the post of Matron, she had not c ompleted the requirement of 6 (six) years of service in the post of Sister Tutor prescribed for an M.Sc Degree Holder to make her eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Matron. 7. It is further contended that the petitioner has been serving in the post of Sister Tutor since 26.9.1987 and only during the pendency of this wr it petition, the petitioner has been given promotion to the post of Principal Nu rsing Officer, which is a post equivalent to the post of Matron w.e.f. 29.3.2007 . It is contended that the promotion of the petitioner must relate back to the t ime when her juniors in the shape of respondent No 4 was promoted to the post of Matron. 8. The learned counsel has also drawn attention of the Court to the Seniority List of Sister Tutors/ PHN etc. which was considered by the responden t authorities at the time of making promotion to the post of Matron. In the said gradation list, the name of the petitioner appears at Serial No 23 showing her date of joining to the post of Sister Tutor on 6.10.1987 whereas in the said gra dation list, the name of respondent No 4 appears at Serial No 44 showing (wrongl y) her date of joining to the post of Sister Tutor as 28.11.1982. By referring to the said Seniority List, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No 4 although was promoted to the po st of Sister Tutor only on 10.7.2003 she is shown to have been considered workin g in the post of Sister Tutor as far back as on 29.11.1982 on which date she was appointed as a Staff Nurse only. It is pointed out that post of Staff Nurse is a post, lower than the post of Sister Tutor. 9. On the basis of the claim of seniority as well as on the basis o f contentions raised regarding disqualification of the respondent No 4 to be con sidered for promotion, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for the relief of setting aside the order of promotion given to respondent No 4 as well as for consideration of her case from the retrospective date of promotion of he r junior. 10. Mr G Soren, learned G.A. Assam, has submitted that the promotion of respondent No 4 has been made on the basis of recommendation of the Selectio n Committee DPC considering the fact that the respondent No 4 was the only M.Sc Nursing Degree holder in the entire State. However, the learned G.A., Assam could not specifically explain as to how the respondent No 4 could have been considered eligible for promotion to the post of Matron, although she had not completed the minimum 6 (six) years of service in the post of Sister Tutor at the time of considering her case of pr omotion to the post of Matron. 11. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. In the absence of service r ules it is submitted by both the counsels appearing for the parties that the Gui deline appended as Annexures to the Rejoinder affidavit dated 14.6.2007 filed on behalf of the Government, covers the field in the absence of the rules for maki ng promotion to the post of Matron. 12. From examination of the norms prescribed in the Guideline, it is apparent that even for an M.Sc Degree Holder minimum 6 (six) years experience i s needed as Sister Tutor for being considered for promotion to the higher post. The respondent No 4 does not possess the minimum 6 (six) years of teaching exper ience as she was promoted to the post of Sister Tutor only on 16.2.2004. Accordi ngly, I am constrained to hold that as the respondent No 4 do not possess the mi nimum qualification, she should not have been considered for promotion to the po st of Matron. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.10.2005 (Annexure  6) is held to be unsustainable in law and the same is hereby set aside and quashed. 13. It appears that the writ petitioner has since been promoted to t he higher post by order-dated 23.3.2007. As regards her further prayer for getti ng promotion to the post from the retrospective date i.e. the date of promotion of the Juniors, I direct the respondent authorities to accordingly consider the case of the petitioner along with other eligible persons in the grade of Sister Tutor and as the writ petitioner has been working as Sister Tutor from 26.9.1987 . Her case should be considered by the respondent authorities to relate back her promotion from an earlier date, when she should have been considered and given the promotion to the higher post of Matron/Principal Nursing Officer. 14. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed to t he extent indicated above.