Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Petitioner is a judicial officer belonging to the Assam Judicial Service. He was appointed in the year 2002 and at the time of filing this petition, he was serving as Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Charaideo, Sonari in the district of Sivasagar.

2. Petitioner seeks promotion from Grade III to Grade II in the Assam Judicial Service w.e.f. the year 2011. According to the petitioner, though his name figured in the zone of consideration for promotion in the year 2011, he was not promoted. In the promotion carried out in the year 2012 his name was not even included in the list of eligible candidates. Aggrieved, he has filed the present writ petition seeking the relief as indicated above.

3. From the documents annexed to the writ petition it is seen that a promotion exercise was carried out for promotion from Grade III to Grade II of the Assam Judicial Service in respect of 6 vacancies in the year 2011. In the zone of consideration which was short listed by applying the 1:3 ratio, petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 18. But he was not promoted.

4. In the next year i.e. in the year 2012, the High Court issued a notification dated 13-06-2012 notifying 50 officers in Grade III as being eligible for promotion to Grade II on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. But name of the petitioner was not included in the list of 50 officers though the officers from Sl. No. 07 onwards were junior to him. The High Court issued another notification dated 13-06-2012 promoting 26 officers belonging to Grade III to Grade II.

5. According to the petitioner, the criteria for promotion from Grade III to Grade II as per the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 2003 is "seniority-cum-merit subject to overall suitability". Annual Confidential Rolls (ACRs) of last 5 years are to be considered and those officers having minimum two "good" grading in ACRs are considered for promotion provided their integrity and character is beyond doubt or there is no doubt.

6. ACRs of 2009, 2010 and 2011 were communicated to the petitioner. Petitioner was graded "good" in the years 2009 and 2010. In the year 2011, he was graded as "average" with the remark "integrity: doubtful". There was a further remark of the accepting authority to keep the petitioner under watch. Petitioner submitted representation dated 18-06-2012 for expunction of adverse remark in the ACR for the year 2011. Petitioner was informed by the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court vide letter dated 10-10-2012 that the remark "integrity: doubtful" was expunged while the grading of "average" and the other remark were left undisturbed.

7. Petitioner has contended that since he had two "good" grading and the adverse remark of "doubtful: integrity" having been expunged, he is required to be considered for promotion to Grade II at least alongwith the promotees of 2012.

8. Registrar General of the High Court has filed an affidavit. It is stated that petitioner does not have any legally enforceable vested right to be promoted. Petitioner's case for promotion was duly considered but he was not given promotion as he failed to fulfill the requisite criteria prescribed under the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 2003 as amended. Criteria for promotion from Grade III to Grade II are as follows:-

(i) the officer must have been in the cadre of Grade III for a period not less than 5 years;

(ii) seniority-cum-merit subject to overall suitability;

(iii) ACRs of last 5 years are to be considered and officers having minimum of two "good" grading in the ACRs will be considered provided their integrity and character is beyond doubt.

Petitioner was considered for promotion in the year 2012. For this purpose ACRs of last 5 years i.e. from 2007 to 2011 were considered. Out of the 5 years, petitioner had two "good" and three "average" gradings with an adverse remark of "integrity: doubtful" in the year 2011. Therefore, considering his overall suitability, petitioner could not be promoted from Grade III to Grade II in the ye