IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that promotions must adhere to established service regulations and competitive merit, emphasizing the importance of seniority in promotion decisions.

JUDGMENT :

(Kaushik Goswami, J)

Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the appellant in both the writ appeals. Also heard Mr. S. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Pollution Control Board, appearing for respondent Nos.2, 3, & 4 and Mr. T. Chakrabarty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5.

2. These writ appeals are presented against the common judgment & order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.5055/2016 & WP(C) No.5431/2016.

3. By way of the said two writ petitions, i.e. WP(C) No.5431/2016 and WP(C) No.5055/2016, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.06.2016, whereby the appellant, namely, Rabiul Haque (respondent No.5 before the learned Single Judge), was given promotion and was placed senior to the writ petitioners. In the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners further sought restoration of their seniority over the appellant/respondent No.5. The issue involved in the two writ petitions being identical, were disposed of by the common impugned judgment & order dated 19.08.2019. The said common judgment being challenged in both the writ appeals, the two appeals are accordingly taken up together for disposal.

4. The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant/respondent No.5 was initially appointed as Field Assistant on 21.07.1994 at the Regional Office at Bongaigaon, Pollution Control Board, Assam (hereinafter to be referred as “PCBA”) and subsequently, appointed as Assistant Chemist at the said Regional Office on 04.03.2000 and was transferred to the Head Office of the PCBA at Bamunimaidam in the year 2001 and the said post of Assistant Chemist was regularized on 26.05.2003. Thereafter, the appellant/respondent No.5 was promoted to post of Chemist in 2011, which was re-designated as Assistant Environmental Scientist (hereinafter to be referred as “AES”) in 2012. It is the specific case of the appellant/respondent No.5 that though he was the only eligible candidate for promotion to the next higher post, i.e. Environmental Scientist (hereinafter to be referred as “ES”), however, the PCBA promoted three B.Sc. passed AES to the post of ES on 30.07.2013 and subsequently to the post of Assistant Executive Environmental Scientist (hereinafter to be referred as “AEES”) on 01.01.2014 and 03.03.2014 as per Service Regulation of PCBA, 2012. Situated thus, the appellant/respondent No.5 had submitted representations before the Chairman of PCBA, and the respondent Board, after considering the representation submitted by the appellant/respondent No.5, vide order dated 24.06.2016, upgraded and promoted the appellant/respondent No.5 to the post of ES and subsequently AEES.

5. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners, who were the earlier promotees to the post of ES, by filing writ petitions being WP(C) No.5055/2016 & WP(C) No.5431/2016, challenged the said upgradation and promotion of the appellant/respondent No.5. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by common judgment & order dated 19.08.2019, whereby the impugned upgradation and promotion of the appellant/respondent No.5 was set aside and quashed. Hence, the present writ appeals.

6. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent No.5 submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the private respondents (writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge) were promoted in violation of Regulation 9 (III) (b) and (c) as the said respondents/writ petitioners had passed only B.Sc. degree. He further submits that the appellant/respondent No.5 was the only M.Sc. degree holder and qualified candidate for promotion from AES to ES and ES to AEES.

He further submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellate Authority of PCBA had manipulated the requisite qualification for the post of ES in the name of issuing "Corrigendum", which was not even approved by the Board