WP(C) 2879/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE U.B. SAHA Judgment and Order (oral) The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner who is at present h olding the post of Technical Assistant for a direction to the State respondents to promote him to the post of Library Assistant being he is eligible to be consi dered for the said post. 2. Heard Mr. KD Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. MR Patha k, learned Standing Counsel, Education. 3. Though this court issued notice to the respondents on 20.7.2009 asking t hem to show cause as to why Rule should not be issued, but till today no affidav it-in-opposition has been filed by them. 4. As agreed to by the learned counsel of both sides and considering the na ture of the prayer made in the writ petition, the instant writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 5. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that while he was holding the char ge of Counter Attendant under the office of the District Library, Dhubri, he was promoted as Technical Assistant on 5.8.1997 and was posted at District Library, Goalpara and since then he has been discharging his duties to the utmost satisf action of the authority concerned. On 27.2.2003 the Director of Library Services , Assam, Guwahati made a proposal to the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam f or promoting the petitioner to the post of Library Assistant as an in service in cumbent being eligible for the said post, but the Joint Secretary is sitting ove r the proposal without taking any action. The petitioner made a representation o n 18.2.2005 to the Director of Library Services, Assam, Guwahati, respondent No. 3 to appoint him to the post of Library Assistant on promotional basis. Having f ailed to get any response from the respondent No.3, he made another representati on to the respondent No.3 on 27.11.2008 requesting the respondent No.3 to appoin t him as Library Asstt. or Sub-Divisional Librarian on promotional basis as he w as holding the feeder post of the aforesaid two posts. He also made some other r epresentations in between the representations dated 18.2.2005 and 27.11.2008, bu t the respondent No.3 neither disposed of his representations nor informed him a nything regarding his prayer. Hence this writ petition. 6. As the respondents did not file any affidavit-in-opposition it is diffic ult for this court to record the pleaded statements of the respondents. It is un fortunate that even after getting the chance for about one year to file the affi davit-in-opposition the respondents did not do so and from that a court can easi ly imagine how the Government is functioning in the State. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while urging for the relief fairly su bmits that promotion is not a right of an employee, the only right is the consid eration. He submits that the name of the petitioner was proposed by the responde nt No.3 to the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 27.2.2003 (Annexure-1 to the wr it petition) wherein it was specifically mentioned Govt. may kindly allow the u ndersigned to make promotion of the above 2(two) posts held by eligible inservic e incumbents namely (1) Shri Phanindra Mazumder, Tech. Asstt. and (2) Shri Nirod Kr. Bardoloi, L.D. Asstt. who are graduate and long experience in library servi ces subject , but the respondent No.2 neither replied to that nor allowed the re spondent No.3 to appoint the petitioner though it was mentioned in the said lett er that Selection Committee was constituted but no selection could be made. 8. It is no longer res integra that promotion is not a right of an employee due to the various decisions of the Apex Court. It is not necessary on the part of this court to discuss all those cases. At the same time, the court is by its very nature competent to appreciate the abilities of an employee particularly t he qualities or attributes necessary for the post to be filled up by authority. In a modern world office or duty of particular post differ from office to office and the employer is the best judge who can be promoted to the higher post consi dering the nature of work involved with the promotional post as the assessment o f merit is to be done by the experts on the subject, court can only direct for p romotion when an employee is refused to be promoted in higher post without any r eason and his juniors were promoted without considering the case of the employee who alleged discrimination. 9. As agreed to by the learned counsel of both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :- The petitioner will file a fresh representation to the Commissioner & Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Higher Education Department raising all his grievances along wi th a copy of this writ petition including all Annexures as well as a copy of thi s order within seven days from today and the Commissioner & Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Education Department on receipt of the representation shall consider and dispose of the same by a reasoned order within two months thereafter. It is made clear that at the time of disposal of the representation, if any, filed by the petitioner, the Commissioner & Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Education Department s hall take note of the letter dated 27.2.2003 (Annexure-I to the writ petition). 10. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to cost.