WA 70/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. K. MUSAHARY Aggrieved by the order, dated 06-01-2011, passed in Misc. Case No. 3607/2010, wh ich was filed by the respondent No. 1, namely, Dr. Jayanta Pathak, in WP(C) No. 4672 of 2010, whereby the interim direction passed, earlier, in the writ petitio n, on 20-08-2010, has been recalled to facilitate the appointment of the recomme nded candidate to the post of Professor in the Assam Engineering College, Guwaha ti, making, however, the promotion to be made, pursuant to the recommendations a forementioned, subject to the final result of the writ petition, the appellant, who was the writ petitioner, has filed this appeal. Heard Mr. N Nath, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. S Saikia, learned c ounsel for the respondent No. 1. Heard also Mr. VM Thomus, learned counsel, appe aring on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and Mr. MK Choudhury, learned Se nior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties concerned, we notice that the l etter, dated 16-10-1976, was issued by the Government of Assam, Department of Ed ucation (CTM), in connection with the introduction of the Post Graduate course i n the Assam Engineering College. We also notice that the Post Graduate course, w hich had been offered, at the relevant point of time, by the Assam Engineering C ollege, was Watershed Management and Flood Control (WMFC). In fact, Watershed Ma nagement and Flood Control was the only subject on which post graduate degree wa s, undisputedly, introduced by the College at the relevant point of time. We fu rther notice that the post graduate course in Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi neering (SMFE) was introduced much later and to be precise, in this regard, it was only in the year 1988 that the post graduate degree in Soil Mechanics and Fo undation Engineering was introduced by the Assam Engineering College. At the tim e, therefore, when the letter, dated 16-10-1976, aforementioned was issued, the only Post Graduate course, offered by the Assam Engineering College, Guwahati, W atershed Management and Flood Control. The said post graduate course could not h ave been conducted without a person having specialized knowledge in Watershed Ma nagement and Flood Control. This prima facie findings of ours is supported by th e fact that the letter, dated 16-10-1976, issued by the Secretary to the Governm ent of Assam, Department of Education (CTM), shows that the first appointee to t he newly created post was Shri SD Phukan, Professor in Civil Engineering, Jorhat , and against the post of Assistant Professor, it was Shri RM Barua, Lecturer in Civil Engineering, who was temporarily promoted and the subject of specializati on of both these persons was Watershed Management and Flood Control. This aspect appears to have not been taken into account, while passing the impugned order r ecalling the interim directions, which had been passed earlier in the writ petit ion. Considering the fact that at the relevant point of time, the post graduate cours e, offered by the Assam Engineering College, was in Watershed Management and Flo od Control and a person eligible to teach such a subject was required to man the said post, we find that the respondents are required to satisfy the Court that any post for conducting specialized course, at post graduate level, on the subj ect of Watershed Management and Flood Control, had existed, when the letter, dat ed 16-10-1976, was issued, for, we are of the view, albeit tentative that if no such post had existed at the relevant point of time, then, the post, which the l etter, dated 16-10-1976, aforementioned, created, was meant to satisfy this defi ciency in conducting the said Post Graduate course. This aspect of the matter to o appears to have not been taken note of, while passing the impugned order. Be that as it may, the impugned order has been made, as already indicated above, subject to the outcome of the writ petition and, in the meanwhile, respondent N o. 1, namely, Dr. Jayanta Pathak, has already been promoted following the recomm endations of the authorities concerned. The appellant has, however, not made any application seeking interim order restraining the respondent No. 1 from enjoyin g his promotion. As against the promotion of the respondent No. 1, no relief has been sought for at this stage by the appellant, we are of the view that the pro motion of the respondent No. 1 need not, at this stage, be interfered with, part icularly, when we notice that the promotion is subject to the outcome of the wri t petition. We are, however, clearly of the view that the interest of justice wo uld be best served if the writ petition is disposed of expeditiously so that the controversy, centering around the object with which the post was created by the letter, dated 16-10-1976, aforementioned, can be effectively resolved. In view of the above and as the learned counsel for the parties too agree, we di spose of this appeal with the direction to the Registry to list the writ petitio n, for admission, on 04-04-2011, and we request the Court to dispose of the writ petition, if possible, at the admission stage itself so that the delay and mult iplicity of further proceeding may be avoided. We, however, express no opinion on the question as to whether the respondent No. 1 is or is not eligible or qualified to be promoted to the post, which has, now , been filled up by giving him the promotion. With the above observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.