WP(C) 6890/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the respondents to promote him to the higher grades at par with his juniors , who have been arrayed as party respondents in this proceeding. Although the w rit petition was admitted by order dated 16-09-2004, but even after expiry of ab out 4 (four) years thereafter, the respondents, including the private respondent s have not responded to this proceeding by filing any affidavit-in-opposition or furnishing instruction to the learned State Counsel. I have heard Mr. S Huda, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as M s. R Chakraborty, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on beh alf of the respondents. The petitioner was first appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (ASI) way back in the year 1969 by Annexure-1 notification dated 23-01-1969. Th ereafter, it appears that he was granted officiating promotion to the next highe r rank of Sub-Inspector of Police on 14-07-1979. He continued in that rank for nearly 20 (twenty) years, when he was asked by Annexure-1(A) order dated 25-06-1 999 to report to the particular battalion campus on 30-06-1999 in connection wit h selection for promotion and confirmation. Along with him some others were als o directed to appear in the selection. In absence of any counter affidavit, it i s not understood as to what was the necessity for selection after 20 (twenty) ye ars of promotion of the petitioner to the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that his juniors were already promoted to the post of Inspector and their promotion/ serv ices have also been confirmed. Thus it is the case of the petitioner that he sh ould be provided with promotions to the next higher grade, at par with his junio rs. Time to time representations made by the petitioner failed to evoke any response. Eventually by communication dated 17-04-2000 (Annexure-2), the intimat ion was furnished that the Selection Board constituted for confirmation/promotio n of Sub-Inspectors held in June, 1999 did not recommend the petitioner for conf irmation and hence he was not confirmed in the rank. Be it stated here that the petitioner, in response to the Annexure-1(A) order dated 25-06-1999 duly appear ed before the Selection Board. The aforesaid communication dated 17-04-2000 (Annexure-2) does not throu gh any light in respect of the grievance of the petitioner. Firstly, as noted a bove, it is not understood as to what was the necessity to call the petitioner t o appear before the Selection Board for confirmation/selection to the post of Su b-Inspector of Police after 20 (twenty) years of officiating promotion in that r ank. Secondly, in the communication there is also no mention about the grievanc e of the petitioner that his juniors superceded him in the matter of promotion t o the rank of Inspector of Police and even to the higher grades thereafter. The fact that the petitioner even after his non selection and non confir mation intimated by the aforesaid communication dated 12-04-2000, continued in t he higher rank of Sub-Inspector of Police is amply demonstrated by Annexure-3 ce rtificate dated 31-08-2004 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), C ID, Assam. As per the said certificate, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police on 14-05-1979. The petitioner made Annexure-4 appeal / representation dated 09-09-2004 to the Director General of Police, Assam agita ting his grievance. In the appeal he also mentioned about his earlier appeals/r epresentations. It was highlighted that his juniors were all promoted and confi rmed in the respective grades and that the retirement of the petitioner was fast approaching, which was 31-07-2007. Be it stated here that in view of the extens ion of retirement age up to 60 (sixty) years, at present the retirement date of the petitioner is 31-01-2009. Thus he will be retire from service within about six months. By Annexure-4 (a) communication dated 09-02-2004, the persons named ther ein, including the petitioner (Serial No.1) were asked to keep themselves in rea diness for appearing before the Selection Board as and when held. In the communi cation the persons were shown as officiating Sub-Inspector of CID Organisation. Mr. Huda, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the copy of the order dated 13-09-2005 by which the services of the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Po lice has been confirmed on being selected for such confirmation. Thus here is a case in which the petitioner had to wait for long 26 (twenty six) years for reg ular selection and/or confirmation in the promotional post of Sub-Inspector of P olice. In absence of any counter affidavit and response to this proceeding, it is not discernable as to on what count the regular promotion and/or confirmation of the petitioner in the promotional post of Sub-Inspector of Police was held u p. It is also not discernable as to on what count the juniors of the petitioner superceded him. It is the grievance of the petitioner that his juniors were pro moted to the rank of Inspector of Police and even to the higher grades without c onsidering the case of the petitioner. From the materials available on record what has transpired is that the r espondents delayed the confirmation of service of the petitioner in the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police. If he was promoted to that rank in 1979, may be on offi ciating basis, his confirmation on regular selection could not have been delayed for long 26 (twenty six) years. If the petitioner was otherwise eligible and s uitable for promotion, he could not have been allowed to be superseded by his ju niors in the matter of promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police etc. If the petitioner has been superseded in the matter of promotion, then as has been hel d by the Apex Court in R.K. Sethi & Anr. -Vs- Oil & Natural Gas Commission & Ors . reported in (1997) 10 SCC 616 applying the test of next below rule , the peti tioner will be entitled to get consideration for such promotion at par with his juniors. However, the parameters and yardsticks, which were applied in case of promotion of his juniors, will also be applicable to the case of the petitioner. All the aforesaid aspects of the matter need consideration of the respon dents. As noted above, the petitioner is now at the verge of retirement. The writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondents to consid er the case of the petitioner consistently with the observations made above. Sin ce the date of retirement of the petitioner is fast approaching, the respondents may pass appropriate order on or before 30th September, 2008 upon production of the certified copy of this order along with the copy of the writ petition and i ts enclosures. If it is found that the petitioner was due for promotion at par with his juniors to the higher rank of Inspector of Police and or any other high er grades, he shall be provided with the same subject to the condition that he w ill not be entitled to any backwages, but will be entitled set fixation of pay n otionally. Writ petition is disposed of.