This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying the following reliefs :

(i) to forebear the respondents from giving effect the order dated 11.1.91 (Annexure 12), order dated 29.1.91 (Annexure 13), order dated 29.1.91 (Annexure 14 and order dated 22.9.87 ( Annexure 2).

(ii) for a direction for notional promotion to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1983.

2. The brief facts are as follows : On 5.2.53 the petitioner was appointed in the post of LDA in the office of the Director of Food and Civil Supplies. On 12.7.56 the respondent No. 5 was appointed in the post of LDA. On 12.8.74 the petitioner was promoted to the post of UDA. On 1.9.74 both the petitioner and respondent No. 5 was confirmed in the post of UDA. On 13.8.84 the respondent No. 5 was considered less efficient in the post of UDA and she was allotted lighter work usually done by LDA. This is Annexure 10A to the writ application. The Annexure 10A is an order by the Director. This order will show that Smti Suchitra Majumdar UDA will attend the dispatch and diary table of Central Branch. So the statement that respondent No.5 was considered less efficient in the post of UDA is not borne out by Annexure 10A and it is incorrect. On 14.8 84 the petitioner was allowed to work in the post of of Superintendent for some days. On 2.3.85 the petitioner was regularly promo­ted to the post of Superintendent. On 3.5.85 the respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of Superintendent. The petitioner earned increment in the post Superintendent with effect from 1.3.87. Although the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Registrar the respondent No. 5 who is junior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Registrar. The petitioner approa­ched the authorities with representation against the promotion of respondent No.5 to the post of Registrar superseding her just claim. The respondent No.2 communicated to the petitioner the alleged adverse entry in her ACR in res­pect of the year 1986. This was on 29.9.87. The petitioner filed a representa­tion before respondent No. 2 against the adverse entry in her ACR. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. Thereafter the Govt. holding that the petitioner cannot be deprived of her promotion on the basis of uncommunicated ACR, set aside the promotion of respondent No. 5 to the post of Registrar. The petitioner earned increment in the post of Superin­tendent with effect from 1.3.88. On 6.8.88 the respondent No. 5 was reverted to the post of petitioner and the petitioner was promoted to the post of Registrar. The respondent No. 5 filed an appeal before the Govt. which was rejected. The respondent No.5 filed an appeal before the Assam Administra­tive Tribunal which was registered as Case No. 77 ATA/90 and the learned Tribunal came to a finding that the petitioner did not complete two years of continuous service in the post of Superintendent to be eligible to be promo­ted to the post of Registrar as required under the Rules. The Tribunal directed that as neither party has completed 2 years of service as Superintendent as required under the Rules the selection for promotion shall be made only on the basis of ACR as Superintendent and before making such selection the representation dated 17.11.87 of the petitioner against the adverse entry in her ACR shall be disposed of. The petitioner filed a writ application before this Court being CR No. 1996 of 1990 and the same was disposed of by this Court by remanding the same to the Govt. to consider the matter as directed by the Tribunal. On 11.1.91 the representation dated 17.11.87 was rejected by the authority holding that the reporting authority was not satisfied with the work of the petitioner. On 29.1.91 the Selection Committee held that although the petitioner is senior to respondent No. 5, she cannot be selected due to adverse entry in her ACR. The Selection Committee selected respondent No. 5 to the post of Registrar and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document