JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J. - (1.) THIS Mandamus Appeal is directed against the judgment and/or order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 18th September, 2012 in WP No.1447 of 2010 at the instance of the writ petitioner/appellant.
(2.) BY the impugned order, the writ petition was dismissed primarily on the ground of delay and latches on the part of the writ petitioner in moving the writ petition before this Court. However, considering the chequered history of this litigation, the merit of the writ petition was also considered by the learned Single Judge, who ultimately held that the writ petition also deserved no merit for consideration. The legality and/or propriety of the said order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 18th September, 2012 is under challenge in this appeal. As a matter of fact, the instant writ petition was filed by the appellant in 2010 challenging the legality of the promotion given to Ram Chander, private respondent no.6 herein, to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on 11th May, 2001. According to the writ petitioner, such promotion was given to the private respondent no.6 in total disregard of the guidelines laid down by the Division Bench of this Court on 13th December, 2000 in Mandamus Appeal, being MAT No.12 of 2000, for recruitment to the promotional post in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, in its different branches. Such guidelines were framed by the Division Bench of this Court, as at the relevant time, there was no statutory rules governing the field of recruitment in such promotional post. The private respondent herein was party to the said proceeding and as such the decision passed in the said Mandamus Appeal is binding upon the Administration and others who were parties to the said proceeding.
(3.) BEFORE entering into the merit of the writ petition, this Court feels that for convenience of understanding of the issue involved in this writ petition, background of the case, in brief, is required to be kept on record as both the writ petitioner and the private respondent no.6 involved themselves in several litigations making their rival claims with regard to their placement in the seniority list and/or the legality of their promotion in the promotional post.;