WP(C) 8261/2002 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. H.I. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also he ard Ms. V.L. Sinha, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for the r espondents 1,3 & 4. The respondents No.2 is represented by Mr. U.K. Nair, learne d Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioners are working as Addl. Supervisor Kanungos under the offic es of the Assistant Settlement Officers/Revenue Circles of Cachar district. They challenge the order dated 25.11.2002 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar (Annexure-10), whereby the private respondents have been promoted to the post of Supervisor Kanungos. The petitioners contend that they are senior to the respon dents in the feeder post of Patwaris/Mandals and therefore they should be consid ered for promotion as Supervisor Kanungos in the establishment of the Deputy Com missioner, Cachar. The petitioners rely upon the gradation list of Patwaris/Mand als (Annexure-11) to show the seniority position of the private respondents vis- à-vis the writ petitioners. 3. Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that promotion to the post of Supervisor Kanungos is to be considered on seniority basis from the feeder cadre of Patwaris/Mandals and it is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner is the appointing authority for appointing persons in the posts of Supervisor Kanungos. 4. Ms. V.L. Sinha, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate relies upon the co unter affidavit to contend that the writ petitioners have been working for nearl y 2 decades in the posts of Addl. Kanungos, sanctioned by the Government in the year 1990 for the 3rd re-settlement works in Cachar district, as at that time no posts of Supervisor Kanungos was available under the establishment of the Deput y Commissioner, Cachar. She submits that the post of Addl. Kanungos in which the petitioners have been serving is equivalent in all respect with the post of Sup ervisor Kanungos with identical time scale of pay. It is further submitted that same pensionary benefits are payable to those retiring after serving as Addl. Ka nungos vis-à-vis Supervisor Kanungos. Ms. Sinha also submits that as the writ pe titioners were already serving in the higher posts for about 11 years at the tim e of sanctioning of additional post(s) of Supervisor Kanungos by the Government in the year 2002 (Annexure-7), the private respondents working in the feeder pos ts of Patwaris/Mandals and were waiting for promotion for 11 years, were promote d by the impugned order dated 25.11.2002 on the basis of seniority and entitleme nt. 5. Accordingly contentions are made by the learned Government Counsel that the petitioners cannot claim promotion as they have been working in equivalent p romotion posts for over a decade, at the time when promotions were ordered in fa vour of the private respondents. 6. If the petitioners have been promoted and were working in equivalent pro motion posts of Supervisor Kanungos, there can be no justification for them to c hallenge the promotion given to the private respondents, who have been working i n the feeder posts of Patwaris/Mandals. When additional posts of Supervisor Kanu ngos were sanctioned, only the private respondents were eligible to be considere d against the created vacancies since in the mean time, the petitioners were alr eady promoted and were serving in the higher posts. 7. The averments made in the counter affidavit shows that the post of Addl . Kanungos and Supervisor Kanungos are equivalent in all respect and that they r eceive the same salaries and retirement benefits is not disputed by the petition ers. In such circumstances, it is difficult for the Court to see how the writ pe titioners can claim promotion to the post(s) of Supervisor Kanungos created in t he year 2002 as the petitioners were already serving in equivalent posts when th e additional posts were created. Therefore in my view, the private respondents w ere rightly considered for promotion in the created vacancies of Supervisor Kanu ngos. 8. In view of above discussion, I do not see any justification to entertain this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.