WP(C) 5264/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Heard Mrs. A. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5. I have also hea rd Mrs. M. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, B.T.C. The petitioner is aggrieved by his non- promotion. According to him, the Respond ent No.5 was promoted on 16.11.2004 although he is junior to the petitioner in t he Grade-IV cadre. The time to time representations made by the petitioner urgin g for promotion at par with the Respondent No.5 having not yielded any result, h e filed the instant writ pet5ition. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No.2, nothing material has been stated. Only statement made is that although the Respondent No.5 was promoted b y order dated 16.11.2004, but the same was cancelled on 27.7.2005 and thereafter , again the cancellation order was withdrawn by order dated 28.11.2005 on the ba sis of the order of this Court dated 16.11.2005 passed in WP(C)No.6315/2005. Not hing has been stated in the affidavit as to whether the said writ petition is st ill pending or the order dated 16.11.2005 is an interim order. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the Director of Health Services and the Joint Director of Health Services (Malaria), Assam are the authorities for promotion from Grade-IV to any other Grade-III post. Thus, t he real grievance of the petitioner that he has been superseded in the matter of promotion by the Respondent No.5 has not been dealt with. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3, it has been stated that t he cancellation of the promotion of the Respondent No.5 has been set aside and q uashed by this Court by order dated 16.11.2005 passed in WP(C) No.6315/2005. Considering the matter in its entirety, this writ petition is disposed of direct ing the Respondents No.2 and 3 to pass appropriate order in consideration of the grievance of the petitioner. If it is found that the petitioner has been supers eded in the matter of promotion, his grievance may be redressed by considering his case applying the principle next below rule . Let the entire exercise be carried out as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 3 (three) months. In case it is found that the petitioner is entitled to get promotion at par with the Respondent N o.5, he will not be entitled to get any back wages, but his pay may be fixed notionally.