GUWAHATI, India, Dec. 4 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Oct. 4:

1. Heard Mr. Dilip Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. representing respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.

2. The private respondents are not represented, although by order dated 01.03.2024, this Court directed to take steps for service of notice on respondent Nos.4 to 8 and 10 to 21 by publishing the notice in two local daily newspapers having wide circulation in the State of Assam (one in English and one in vernacular). The respondent No.9 is shown to be represented by Mr. J. Barman, learned counsel. As per Office Note dated 02.05.2024, it appears that the respondents No. 4 to 8, 10 to 14, 17 and 19 to 21 were represented by the learned counsel. Subsequently, by Office Note dated 16.07.2024, it is reflected that respondent Nos.9, 16 and 18 were also represented by counsel. Accordingly, all the respondents were represented by the learned counsel.

3. The petitioner is serving as Assistant Branch Manager under the respondent bank. The petitioner was initially appointed as Probationary Officer in the respondent Bank on 16.12.2010. While the petitioner was serving in that capacity, the bank authorities proceeded to consider the officers similarly situated like the petitioner for promotion to the next higher Grade D. According to the petitioner, he was placed at a higher position in the seniority list which was published by the bank for the Grade of Assistant Manager/Assistant Branch Manager according to their date of birth. In the said list, the petitioner is placed in the third position. Thereafter, the Selection Committee proceeded to consider the cases of the petitioner and the private respondents. Subsequently, by order dated 05.07.2021, the private respondents were promoted to the next higher rank overlooking the claim of the petitioner.

4. By the present proceedings the impugned order dated 05.07.2021 the petitioner has assailed the promotion of the private respondents to the next higher post overlooking the claim of the petitioner. There are however, two orders passed on 05.07.2021 whereby, officers were promoted in two different sets and in none of the orders, the name of the petitioner figured. The petitioner represented before the authorities concerned but the same was not responded to. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent authorities to consider his case for promoting him to the next higher post with all service benefits including seniority.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x%2FQmlrhE7JN0yLV82ZTRDT5QyBScqlU4bjUat83v3cZn&caseno=WP(C)/2693/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010106232025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.