WP(C) 2382/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr Mahanta,, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr Ghosh, lear ned State Counsel. Briefly stated, the petitioner’s grievance relates to the inter se seniority of his vis-à-vis, the Respondent Nos 4 and 5 in the post of Additional Chief Inspec tor of Factories under the Labour and Employment department, Govt. of Assam. The petitioner claims himself to be a member of Scheduled Tribe (Plains) communi ty. Though in terms of the relevant rules, namely, Assam Factories Service Rules ,1990, the prescribed length of qualifying service in the feeder post of Senior Inspector of Factories for promotion to that of Additional Chief Inspector of Fa ctories is 5 years, according to the petitioner, vis a vis the vacancies of 2005 , the duration was relaxed to 3 years. As by then, he had completed 3 years of s ervice as Senior Inspector of Factories, he was eligible to be considered for p romotion to the aforementioned higher post. The petitioner has averred that the Departmental Selection Board having recommen ded him on consideration against the backlog vacancy earmarked for ST(Plains), according to him, he ought to have been promoted. However, though the Departmen tal Selection Board recommended his promotion, the concerned authorities did no t act thereon. Another meeting of the Selection Board was held on 25.6.2010. In the said meeti ng, however, the petitioner’s candidature was not considered against the vacancy of 2005. The Departmental Selection Board eventually on a consideration of th e cases of eligible candidates recommended Respondent Nos 4 and 5 and the petit ioner in that order for promotion. Resultantly, the reommendees were promoted by notification dated 3.8.2010 and their inter se seniority in the promotional pos t of Additional Chief Inspector of Factories was also portrayed in the said orde r. Being aggrieved by what he perceived to be the denial of his due seniority in s ervice, the petitioner has meanwhile, submitted a representation before the Prin cipal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Labour and Employment department on 14.9 .2010 seeking redress. Because of the delay in response, he is before this Court for its intervention. It is submitted by Mr Mahanta that the petitioner’s grievance for the present w ould be met if the instant petition is closed with a direction to the aforementi oned State authority to consider and dispose of his representation on merits. Mr Ghosh submits that as the issue is governed by the Assam Factories Service Ru les, 1990 which inter alia contain Rule 20 vis a vis, the aspect of inter se se niority of the incumbents in service, he has no objection if this petition is di sposed of with a direction to the authority concerned to record its determinati on in accordance with the relevant rules. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded facts, this petition stands disposed with a direction to the Principal S ecretary to the Govt. of Assam, Labour and Employment Department to dispose of t he petitioner’s representation dated 14.9.2010 with a speaking order. If the sai d authority is of the view that the petitioner ought to be heard, it would be op en for him to afford an opportunity to him to that effect. The decision so take n should be communicated to the petitioner forthwith thereafter. Needless to say , the decision on the petitioner’s representation would be in accordance with la w and the Rules mentioned hereinabove . The petition stands closed in the above terms. No costs.