WP(C) 5684/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY In substance, the challenge laid by the petitioner is directed a gainst the selection of the respondent No. 4 for promotion to the post of Assist ant Controller in the Department of Legal Metrology, Government of Assam (for sh ort hereafter referred to as the Department). I have heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel for the official respondents. Also heard Mr. A. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4. According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as Compu tor on 14/12/1976 in the Department and eventually was promoted to the post of I nspector on 1/9/1986. The next promotional post in the cadre spelt out by the As sam Weight and Measure Rules, 1981 (for short hereafter referred to as the Rules ) is that of the Assistant Controller. Rule 12 specifies that subject to suitabi lity as may be decided by the Selection Board contemplated in Rule 14 thereof an d subject to possessing the qualifications and experience as prescribed, an Insp ector would be eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Controller. Rule 12(2) further requires that for promotion from one cadre to another in the servi ce, a member shall be eligible, if he has undergone training and has passed the Departmental Examination. Vis-à-vis Inspector for the promotion as Assistant Con troller, he has to essentially put in continuous service of seven years to be so complete on first January of the year of the promotion. Rule 13(4) prescribes t hat the selection for promotion would be made on the basis of merit with due reg ard to seniority. According to the petitioner, in the year 2007 while such an identical exercise w as undertaken, there were four backlog vacancies for scheduled candidates in the rank of Assistant Controller. However, the incumbents at Sl. No. 1, 2 and 3 in the gradation list of Inspector though were general category candidates, were pr omoted against the said posts. In the selection under challenge, according to th e petitioner, though he is at Sl. No. 15 and the respondent No. 4 at Sl. No. 27 of the current gradation list, the latter has been promoted in supercession of h is claim under the aforementioned Rules. Mr. Dhar while reiterating the above has urged that the petition er being apparently senior to the respondent No. 4, having regard to the prescri ption of the Rules governing the promotion to the post of Assistant Controller, the recommendation of the latter therefor is grossly illegal. Further, as the pr omotions in the year 2007 have been made against backlog vacancies identified fo r the scheduled caste category candidates in violation of the Rules, the quota r eserved for him as well as similarly situated candidates have thus been illegall y consumed and consequentially the denial of his promotion in the present select ion ought to be adjudged arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and unjust. The learned Counsel for the respondents are one in contending that having regard to the criteria of promotion i.e. merit with due regard to seniority as prescri bed by the Rules, the challenge laid is untenable. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded averments supported by documents appended to the petition, I am constrain ed to sustain the plea taken on behalf of the respondents. A bare reading of the relevant provisions of the Rules demonstrates without any manner of doubt that the criterion for selection for promotion from the post of Inspector to that of Assistant Controller is merit with due regard to seniority. In that view of the matter, higher seniority of a candidate fades into insignificance unless there i s a categorical assertion of superior merit. The petitioner has not founded his challenge on this ground. It is not his case that the respondent No. 4 is less m eritorious than him and thus his selection on that count is in contravention of the Rules. In that view of the matter, the petitioner though eligible in terms o f the Rules, there is nothing on record to substantiate his superior merit over the respondent No. 4 to sustain his challenge to the impugned selection. Inciden tally the respondent No. 4 also belongs to the schedule case community. The plea vis-à-vis the promotion made in the year 2007 is too stale to take note of at t his distant point of time. In view of the above, the instant petition lacks in m erit and is thus dismissed. No costs.