WP(C) 2858/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, PWD. I have also heard Mr. P.P. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure-12 order dated 4.6.2007, by which the respondent No.6 was promoted to the post of UDA. According to the peti tioner, he being senior to the said respondent ought to have been promoted but i nstead ignoring his claim, the authority promoted the respondent No.6. The petitioner was initially appointed as Peon in the year 1984 and ther e after he was promoted to the post of LDA-cum-typist by order dated 20.3.1987. He was so promoted in the office of the Project Superintendent (Fly Over) Constr uction Project. As stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the office of the Superin tending Engineer was split into 3(three) separate establishments, namely, Superi ntending Engineer (Respondent No.4), Executive Engineer (Respondent No.5) and th e Sub-divisional Executive Engineer. As per the own showing of the petitioner af ter such bifurcation, two separate seniority lists were prepared by Annexures 4 & 5. While Annexure-4 seniority list was published by Executive Engineer, PWD (R oads), Annexure-5 seniority list was published by the Superintending Engineer (P WD) ARIASP. In Annexure-4 seniority list, the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No.1 and likewise in Annexure-5, the name of the respondent No.6 appeared at Sl .No.1. Both the seniority lists were for two different establishments. Thus, it was known to the petitioner that he belongs to PWD (Roads) unlike the respondent No.6 who belongs to ARIASP. On the basis of the aforesaid position, the respondent No.6 was promoted to the post of UDA by the impugned Annexure-12 order dated 4.6.2007 on the basi s of his seniority in the separate establishment i.e. ARIASP circle. According to the petitioner, since in the composite establishment, he wa s senior to the respondent No.6 irrespective of the fact that the earlier establ ishment was bifurcated and split to different establishment, his case ought to h ave been considered. I am afraid, such a plea of the petitioner cannot be accept ed. The petitioner himself having accepted his position in the establishment of EE, PWD(Roads), cannot now intrude upon the other establishment i.e. ARIASP circ le, in which the respondent No.6 is working. During the course of hearing Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitio ner has produced the copy of the order dated 12.8.05 which itself will go to sho w that in case of transfer from one establishment to another establishment, the incumbent losses his seniority. Even otherwise also, promotions are effected est ablishment-wise and merely because the petitioner was senior to the respondent N o.6 in the composite establishment, he cannot now claim promotion over the said respondent, who is now working in separate establishment. If the petitioner was interested for the other establishment i.e. ARIASP circle, he ought to have volu nteered for the said establishment instead of remaining in the establishment of PWD(Roads). For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petit ion and accordingly it is dismissed.