Point of Law: Article 16(4) of Constitution of India can be used for giving adequate representation to socially and economically backward category of citizenry.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Central Govt. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. Mr. S.R. Rabha, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent No.5.

2. Assailing the Office Memorandum dated 01.11.2021, by means of which, the respondent No.4 i.e. the Executive Director of the Rubber Board had disposed of the representation dated 26.04.2021 submitted by the respondent No.5 by restoring his seniority in the cadre of Development Officer (DO) with effect from 29.10.2014 although his promotion to the post of DO was given only on 01.07.2021, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is serving as a DO and claims seniority over the respondent No.5. This case has a checkered history. However, the facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition on merit, are briefly stated herein below.

3. The writ petitioner herein was initially appointed as a Junior Field Officer (JFO) under the Rubber Board of India i.e. the respondent No.2 on 15.02.1989. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Field Officer (FO) on 16.04.1996. On 02.06.2006 the writ petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Development Officer (ADO). Finally, he was promoted to the post of Development Officer (DO) on 06.05.2021 in which post he is presently serving.

4. The respondent No.5 belongs to Scheduled Caste (SC) category. His initial entry in the Rubber Board was on 29.10.1993 and thereafter, on being promoted, the respondent No.5 became ADO on 04.12.2009 along with 25 other departmental candidates. In the year 2014 a vacancy arose in the grade of DO due to the demise of an incumbent viz., T. S. Unnikrishnan, who belonged to the SC category. As such, the authorities had promoted the respondent No.5 in the vacant post of DO by taking note of the fact that he belongs to the SC category. Accordingly, the respondent No.4 had issued order dated 29.10.2014 promoting the respondent No.5 to the post of DO. However, since such order was issued without holding a regular DPC for filling up the vacant post of DO, the writ petitioner herein along with another ADO, viz., Pradip Kumar Goswami, had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.5815/2014 assailing the order dated 29.10.2014.

5. It appears that around that time, another departmental candidate viz. Smt. Rashmi Rekha Mazumdar had filed as many as three writ petitions being aggrieved by the promotions given to the departmental candidates. WP(C) No.7777/2016 was filed by Smt. Rashmi Rekha Mazumdar assailing the promotion given to her juniors in the rank of ADO in the year 2009. The promotions given to her juniors earlier to that was also put under challenge in WP(C) Nos.3717/2016 and 6901/2014. It would be relevant to mention herein that the present respondent No.5 was also impleaded as respondent No.12 in WP(C) No.6901/2014. All these writ petitions, along with WP(C) No.5815/2014, were taken up together for disposal and by the common judgment and order dated 23.03.2021, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petitions filed by Smt. Rashmi Rekha Mazumdar. However, WP(C) No.5815/2014 preferred by the present writ petitioner and his departmental colleague, who has since retired from service, was allowed by setting aside the order dated 29.10.2014 by means of which, the respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of DO. It would be pertinent to mention herein that although by order dated 29.10.2014 the respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of DO, yet, in view of the interim order of status-quo dated 14.11.2014 passed in WP(C) No.5815/2014 the respondent No.5 could not join as DO. The operative part of the judgment and order dated 23.03.2021 passed in WP(C) No.5815/2014 is reproduced herein below for ready reference :-

“17. In connection with W.P.(C) No. 5815/2014, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 (i.e. Rubber Board) has not been able to show