WP(C) 4693/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI JUDGMENT & ORDER (oral) 1. Heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Saikia , learned Standing Counsel, Health Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. As notices were sent to the respondent Nos.5 and 6 by registered post as far back as on 10.11.2005 service of notice on the said respondents is accepted . 2. The writ petitioner, who is a Surveillance Inspector in Karimganj distri ct, assails an order dated 4.6.2005 by which the respondent No.5 has been promot ed to the post of Malaria Inspector. The petitioner also seeks an order from the Court restraining the impending promotion of the respondent No.6 to the next hi gher post of Malaria Inspector on the ground that the materials on record clearl y establish the seniority of the petitioner over the respondent No.6. The criter ion of promotion to the post of Malaria Inspector, admittedly, is one of seniori ty cum merit. 3. In support of the challenge made in the writ petition, Dr. B. Ahmed, lea rned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on a gradation list of Surv eillance Inspectors of Karimganj District which has been enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. On due consideration of the said gradation list, this Cour t, by its earlier orders passed, had required the learned Standing Counsel, Heal th Department, to inform the Court as to whether promotion to the post of Malari a Inspector is made as per the district-wise gradation list or on the basis of a State level seniority list. Pursuant to the aforesaid query made by the Court, Sri Saikia, learned departmental counsel, on instructions received, has submitte d that, normally, promotion to the post of Malaria Inspector is made from the St ate level seniority list. However, if such promotion on the basis of the State l evel seniority list is declined by the concerned incumbent on the ground that sa me requires the incumbent to move out from the district in which he was earlier posted, in such an event promotions are made from the district level seniority l ist. Sri Saikia has placed before the Court a copy of the State level seniority list as well as the district level seniority list insofar as Karimganj district is concerned. 4. On the basis of the State level seniority list placed before the Court b y Sri Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department, as well as from the c ontents of the gradation list of Karimganj district enclosed by the writ petitio ner as Annexure-3 to the writ petition it is evident that the respondent No.5 is senior to the petitioner in the initial post of Surveillance Worker. However, t he date of appointment of the respondent No.5 as well as the petitioner as also the respondent No.6 in the next higher post of Surveillance Inspector is the sam e i.e. 14.5.2003. The State respondents have acknowledged the respondent No.5 to be senior to the writ petitioner in the post of Surveillance Inspector, possibl y, on the basis of the earlier date of joining of the respondent No.5 in the ini tial post of Surveillance Worker. This is the only way the aforesaid stand of th e State respondents can be understood to be justified in a situation where the d ate of appointment of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 to the post of Surveillance Inspector is the same i.e. 14.5.2003. If the same yardstick is t o be adopted in the case of the petitioner and the respondent No.6 it is clear t hat the petitioner having joined in the post of Surveillance Worker on 28.10.197 4 and the respondent No.6 having joined in the said post on 25.6.84 the petition er must be reckoned to be senior to the respondent No.6. This is the only logica l manner in which the seniority of the petitioner and the respondent No.6 can be determined having regard to the fact that both the fact that both of them were also appointed in the post of Surveillance Inspector on the same date i.e. 14.5. 2003. The fact that the petitioner actually joined in the post of Surveillance I nspector on 16.5.2003 and the respondent No.6 joined on 15.5.2003 pursuant to th e appointment orders of the same day i.e. 14.5.2003 cannot, in the considered vi ew of the Court, be understood to be an acceptable ground for conferring seniori ty to the respondent No.6 over the petitioner, as has been sought to be done by the State respondents. 5. The net result of the above conclusion is that while the respondent No.5 has to be held to be senior to the petitioner in the post of Surveillance Inspe ctor, by application of the same yardstick by which the inter se seniority of th e petitioner and the respondent No.5 has been determined, the petitioner is enti tled to be reckoned as senior to the respondent No.6 in the post of Surveillance Inspector. 6. The relief sought in the writ petition insofar as the respondent No.5 is concerned, therefore, cannot be granted by the Court. The impugned order of pro motion of the respondent No.5 dated 4.6.2005 will, therefore, not be open to int erference. 7. Coming to the claim of the petitioner insofar as the Respondent No.6 is concerned, the Court is told that during the pendency of the writ petition promo tion has not been given to the respondent No.6. In the above circumstances, the case of the petitioner and the respondent No.6 for promotion to the post of Mala ria Inspector shall now be dealt with in accordance with the seniority of the tw o incumbents as determined by the Court and on that basis promotion will be made . As the petitioner is stated to be due for retirement shortly i.e. on 10.3.2009 the respondents will complete the required action in terms of the present direc tion as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of three month s from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or a certified copy thereof. 8. Writ petition, consequently, is partly allowed as indicated above.