WP(C) 6518/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR B.K. SHARMA The petitioner, who belongs to the SC community, has filed this writ pet ition claiming promotion to the post of Superintendent from UDA as a reserved ca tegory candidate. According to the petitioner, the private respondents were ille gally promoted in violation of the percentage and roster meant for the reserved category candidates. During the pendency of the writ petition, the private respondents have r etired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. In that view of the matter, there is no question of disturbing their promotion at this stage. I have heard Mr. D.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.K. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. I have a lso heard Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there being a c lear back log vacancy, the petitioner can very well be accommodated in the promo tional post of Superintendent. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the res pondents to examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of the contention t hat there is a back log vacancy and the case of the petitioner can be considered against the said vacancy. Let the consideration be made by the authorities as expeditiously as pos sible, preferably within 31.1.2012. Whatever may be the outcome of the considera tion of the case of the petitioner, same shall be communicated to him. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition, stands di sposed of, without however, any order as to costs.