WP(C) 2494/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The petitioners being aggrieved by the promotion of the Respondent No.5 to the r ank of Ranger by the impugned memorandum dated 22.08.2003 (Annexure - II to the writ petition) seek annulment thereof. Meanwhile, the Petitioner No.1 and 2 have retired from service. The petitioner No. 2, however before his retirement was p romoted to the post of Forest Ranger by the memo dated 22.06.2005, As a matter o f fact, the Petitioner No.3 was similarly promoted by the said memorandum. The Petitioner No.3 and 5 are presently in service. I have heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H. Rahman , learned counsel for the respondents. The uncontroverted pleaded facts, in absence of any counter from the respondents are that the petitioners were appointed as Forester Grade-I on different dates between 1971 and 1972. They were duly promoted to the next higher post of Deput y Ranger on 17.12.1993 and 28.12.1993. The Respondent No.5, who was initially te mporarily appointed as Forest Guard on 17.03.1970, was promoted as Forester Grad e-I on 25.11.1971. He was in between demoted as Forest Guard to be eventually p romoted as Forester Grade-I in December, 1975. He thereafter, was promoted as F orest Ranger on 22.08.2003. Meanwhile, he had been promoted as Deputy Ranger on 23.04.1992. Following the dates of promotion of the petitioners and the Respon dent No.5, he (Respondent No.5) was thus apparently senior to them (petitioners) in the post of Deputy Ranger. As this Respondent was further promoted to the p ost of Forest Ranger on 22.08.2003 ahead of them, the petitioners being aggrieve d are before this Court. Mr. Sarma, has urged that as because the petitioners had been senior to the Resp ondent No.5 in the post of Forester Grade-I, the impugned promotion of the latte r is in supersession of their superior claim and therefore ought to be interfere d with. Mr. Rahman, on the other hand has urged that as unassailably the Respondent No.5 is senior to the post of Deputy Ranger, which is a feeder post for promotion to that of Forest Ranger, the challenge is misconceived. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded facts and documents available, this Court is inclined to sustain the plea raised on behalf of the respondents. Though, the petitioners were senior to the Respondent No.5 in the rank of Forest er Grade-I, judged by the dates of promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger, he wa s senior to them in that rank. It is not in dispute that the post of Deputy Ran ger feeds the one for Forest Ranger in the matter of promotion. In that view of the matter, in absence any other overwhelming material on record to conclude th at the Respondent No.5, though senior to the petitioners in the rank of Deputy R anger was unfit for promotion to that of Forest Ranger ahead of them, the challe nge as laid by them (petitioners) cannot be entertained. Moreover, more than se ven years have passed in between. The petitioners No.2 and 3 have in the meantim e been promoted as Forest Ranger. In the above view of the matter, on a totality of the considerations narrated he reinabove, this Court does not find any merit in the instant petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.