JUDGMENT :

The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India is being sought to be invoked by the petitioner, who has filed the instant petition raising the issue of fixation of seniority position and also a notification by which promotions have been made. There is a checkered history of this case which is narrated in brief in the following manner.

2. An advertisement was published on 16.02.1997 for filling up 9 posts of Engineering Supervisor (C) under the Fish Farmers Development Agencies which is stated to be under the Department of Fisheries. The petitioner being a BE(C) and eligible under the same had applied for the said posts. It is the case of the petitioner that prior to the said advertisement, another advertisement was issued on 15.09.1996 for filling up of 12 posts of Assistant Engineer (C) in the Water Resources Department (erstwhile Flood Control Department) and the petitioner had also applied against the said advertisement. The recruitment for both the advertisements was conducted by the APSC which had held a combined written examination on 10.05.1998. It is the case of the petitioner that in the select list published for the 9 posts of Engineering Supervisor under the Fish Farmers Development Agencies on 23.04.1999, the petitioner was placed against Sl. No. 5 and on 02.11.1999, the petitioner was given temporary appointment as an Engineering Supervisor (C) which according to the petitioner is in the rank of Assistant Engineer (C). The petitioner continued in his service and vide an order dated 03.05.2007, the services of the petitioner was absorbed in the Water Resources Department in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (C) whereafter a provisional gradation list was published on 29.10.2009 in which, the position of the petitioner was 94. It is the case of the petitioner that there were many incumbents who had joined the Water resources Department after the date when the petitioner had initially joined the service and still were put above the petitioner in the provisional gradation list. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that he had joined his service as Engineering Supervisor in the Fish Farmers Development Agencies on 04.11.1999 and therefore contends that in the provisional gradation list dated 29.10.2009 his position should have been in Sl. No. 12.

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as WP(C) No. 6062/2010 in which this Court had passed an order dated 15.11.2010 whereby notice was issued and interim order was granted directing that the said gradation list not be acted upon. The said writ petition however was withdrawn on 10.12.2010 which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner was done as assurance was given to him of due consideration. Subsequently, an order dated 27.01.2011 was issued with regard to the promotion in which the respondent nos. 4 to 20 were promoted to the execlusion of the petitioner. Petitioner contends that if the seniority is reckoned from the date of joining in the initial service, the petitioner is senior to the said respondents. In the year 2011, another gradation list was published and the petitioner was placed against Sl. No. 66. It is contended that in this list also, the names of the respondent nos. 21 to 28 were put above the petitioner in spite of the fact that they had joined their services subsequent to that of the petitioner. It is the aforesaid action which constitute the cause of action in this writ petition.

4. I have heard Shri A. Chakraborty, learned counsel who has been instructed by his senior to appear in this case. I have also heard Shri B. Goswami, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam along with Shri P. Kakati for the Department.

5. Shri Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned action is not only prejudicial but also erroneous inasmuch as the services rendered by the petitioner after his initial