WP(C) 6654/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner as we ll as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to promote him to the rank of Inspector. The petiti oner’s retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation is fast ap proaching. He will retire on 31.3.2012. The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that he being sen ior to the respondent No. 5, could not have been superceded in the matter of pro motion to the rank of Inspector of Police, which was effected by order dated 10. 11.2009. In this connection, the petitioner made Annexure-E representation dated 30.11.2009. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit enclosing the minutes of the Selection Committee, which shows recommendation of the responden t No. 5 ahead of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector. Although , Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that the petition er is senior to the respondent No. 5 and that the gradings shown in the ACR of t he petitioner are not correct, but the respondents have denied the same in their counter affidavit stating that in the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, the resp ondent No. 5 was senior to the petitioner. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated about his holding the post of assignment as in-charge, Photo Section, CID, HQ st ating the same to be equivalent to the post of Inspector of Police. In the count er affidavit, there is no denial of the same. From the minutes of Selection Committee, it appears that the pet itioner was placed at serial No. 3. The respondent No. 5 earned better gradings than the petitioner. Considering the matter in its entirety, I dispose of the writ pe tition with the observation that the respondents may consider the case of the pe titioner for promotion to any available vacancy in the rank of Inspector of Poli ce, more particularly when he is going to retire from service in March, 2012. Wh atever may be the outcome of the consideration of the case of the petitioner, sa me shall be communicated to him. Considering the fast approaching retirement dat e of the petitioner, the respondents may examine the feasibility or other wise o f the case of the petitioner for promotion as expeditiously as possible, prefera bly within one month from today. Writ petition is disposed of.