IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that retrospective promotion cannot be granted if the candidate does not meet eligibility criteria due to disciplinary actions and insufficient qualifying marks.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Mr. Abdul Muktadir Barbhuiya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in all these 3(three) writ petitions. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Finance Department; Mr. R. Dhar, learned standing counsel, Accountant General(A&E), Assam, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 in WP(c)5488/2019; and Mr. C. Baruah, Accountant General (A&E), Assam, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 in WP(c)4887/2021.

2. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting WP(c)6524/ 2018, has, inter alia, prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for granting retrospective effect to the promotion as effected in his case to the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, vide order, dated 01.03.2017. The petitioner is seeking such promotion to be made w.e.f. 01.01.2009 and thereafter, he has sought for a direction for his promotion to the cadre of Deputy Commissioner of Taxes w.e.f. 01.01.2013.

3. The petitioner in WP(c)5488/2019 has prayed for a direction for his promotion along with consequential benefits to the cadre of Joint Commissioner of Taxes.

4. The petitioner in WP(c)4887/2021 has presented a challenge to the Departmental Selection Committee Minutes meetings, dated 31.05.2013 and 9.12.2016, by which, his case for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, was so considered.

5. The facts in brief for adjudication of the issues as arising in the present proceedings is noticed as under:

The petitioner, herein, on selection, came to be appointed as a Superintendent in the Finance & Taxation Department, on 13.08.1993. In the year 2009; a seniority list of the incumbents in the cadre of Superintendent of Taxes came to be published and therein, the name of the petitioner found placed at serial No. 28.

It is the contention of the petitioner herein that amongst the candidates as existing in the said cadre and belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community, there was only one candidate i.e. Sri Padmadhar Das, who was senior to the petitioner, herein.

The next promotional avenue for the incumbents in the cadre of Superintendent of Taxes, are the posts figuring in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Taxes. The strength of the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Taxes was 25(twenty five) posts and accordingly, in the year 2009, on initiation of a process of selection for the vacancies identified for the year 2008; 14(four) incumbents in the post of Superintendent of Taxes, came to be so promoted to the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Taxes. The petitioner, herein, belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community, was in the zone of consideration, but, he was not so promoted.

It is the contention of the petitioner that on promotion of the said 14(fourteen) Superintendent of Taxes to the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Taxes in the year 2009; the cadre strength of the posts of Assistant Commissioner of Taxes rose to 23(twenty three) posts, and further 2(two) posts continued to remain vacant in the said cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Taxes.

The petitioner contends that given the quota prescribed for Scheduled Caste Community candidates i.e. 7 percent, at least, 2(two) posts in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Taxes was called to be so filled up from the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community.

The petitioner's case for such promotion not having been so considered inspite of vacancies being available; the petitioner approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)647/2012. This Court on consideration of the issues arising in the said proceeding; was pleased vide order, dated 08.02.2013, to dispose of the said writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Taxes within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. This Court further proceeded to provide that the respondent authorities may