WP(C) 409/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Ms. H.M. Phukan, learned State counsel accepts notice on behalf of the n ewly impleaded respondent No. 6. Extra copy of the writ petition shall be furnis hed to her. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner an Extension Officer (Fis heries) has challenged Annexure-17 order dated 12.01.2012 by which the responden t No. 5 has been deputed as In-charge BDO, Narsingpur Development Block to the r eplacement of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he having been allowe d to hold the charge of the post, could not have been replaced by the respondent No. 5. I have heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Saikia, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam. I have also heard Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. Mr. D. Saikia has drawn my attention to the judgment and order dated 28. 06.2012 passed in a batch of writ petition, first one being W.P.(C) No. 3476/201 1 (Adhir Barman & ors. vs. State of Assam and ors.) by which recommendation made by the Pay Anomaly Committee in respect of Assam Pay Commission, 2008 have been upheld. He also produced the copy of the notification dated 13.07.2012 by which the Govt. of Assam in the Panchayat and Rural Development (B) Department has ma de promotion of the Extension Officer to the cadre of BDO. One such promottee is at serial No. 47, namely Pankaj Kr. Deori, who had earlier held as In-charge. In view of such regular promotion, nothing survives in the writ petition inasmuch as while allowing the petitioner to hold the charge it was clearly sti pulated that he would continue till such regular incumbent would join. Since the regular incumbent joined the post, there is no question to continue as In-charg e BDO. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order pa ssed earlier stands vacated.