WP(C) 2284/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 as well as Mr. Bora, l earned Standing Counsel, PWD. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner, a grade-IV employee (Peo n) has prayed for a direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of D uftry at par with the respondent No.4, who was promoted as such by order dated 3 1.3.2010 (Annexure-A). According to the petitioner, he being senior to the respo ndent No. 4, the Executive Engineer, PWD, NH Division, Silchar, ought to have co nsidered his case first before promoting the respondent No.4. To claim seniorit y over the respondent No.4, Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being older in age than the respondent No.4 and the date of appointment order for both the incumbents being one and the same, he is senior to the respondent No.4. The official respondents in their counter affidavit have contended that since the respondent No.4 had joined the service on 29.6.1987 as against the pet itioner’s joining the service on 1.7.1987. Irrespective of the same date of the order of appointment which is 25.6.1987, the respondent No.4 would rank senior t o the petitioner. Another ground urged that since in the appointment order as ag ainst the position of the petitioner at Sl. No. 3, the position of the responden t No.4 was at Sl. No.2 and thus according to merit also, the respondent No.4 was higher in position than the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, the same plea has been taken which is that in view of the position of the respondent No.4 at Sl. No.2 as against the petitioner’s at Sl. No.3 in the order of appointment, the re spondent No.4 would rank senior to the petitioner according to the merit in the select list. On being asked, the learned counsel for the parties could not highlight anything about the applicability of any rule to the instant case. Although, Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Assam Minist erial Establishment (Service) Rule, 1977 but on perusal of the same, it appears that the same is meant for Grade-III post and not Grade-IV posts. According to M r. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, since the order of appointment for both the incumbents was one and the same and was issued on 25.6.87, with the joi ning time of 15 days, it was immaterial as to whether the petitioner could join on 1.7.87 as against the joining of the respondent No.4 on 29.6.87. He further s ubmits that the order of appointment did not indicate placement of the incumbent s according to their merit position in the select list. Thus, he submits that si nce the petitioner is older in age, he should have been assigned higher seniorit y position than that of the respondent No.4 and accordingly his case should have been considered for the post of Duftry. Considering the matter in its entirety, this writ petition is disposed o f directing the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in the light o f the discussions made above. Upon such examination, if it is found that the pet itioner is senior to the respondent No.4, he may also be given promotion to the post of Duftry at par with the respondent No.4 without disturbing the respondent No.4. However, no adverse order shall be passed against the respondent No.4 wit hout giving him an opportunity of being heard. Let the entire exercise shall be carried out as expeditiously as possibl e, but at any rate not later then 31.8.2011. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition is dispose d of, without however, any order as to costs.