Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, said to have initially been appointed on the post of Industry Extension Officer Gr.II in the year 1981 and having been declared surplus in the year 1988, has stated the subsequent events whereby he was absorbed in the Women and Child Development Department; then, in the Land & Building Tax Department; then, in the Commercial Taxes Department; and yet further, on being declared surplus, has ultimately been absorbed on the post of Inspector Gr.II in the Co -operative Department. The petitioner has stated the grievance in the present petition about non -consideration of his objections to the seniority list in the Co -operative Department; and has prayed for the consequential relief of being considered for promotion.
(2.) THOUGH the respondents in their reply have attempted to contend against the claim of the petitioner in regard to the seniority on several grounds but at the same time, have also stated that the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion for the vacancies of the year 2008 -09 but for non -availability of the ACRs, he could not be promoted. The respondents have, however, further averred that one post was kept vacant for considering the case of the petitioner; and his case would be considered, after lifting of the existing ban on the promotions, to the post of Inspector Gr. I and then, the seniority in the cadre of Inspector Gr.I would be assigned to him. The respondents have, inter alia, stated as under: - It will not be out of place to mention it here that the case of petitioner was considered for promotion for the vacancies of year 2008 -09 but ACR of petitioner were not available hence, he could not be promoted but one post was kept vacant for considering petitioner and thereafter there was ban on all promotion. Thus after lifting of ban, the case of the petitioner for promotion to post of grade Ist Inspector will be considered and then only the seniority in the seniority list of Grade I Inspector will be assigned to him. In view of what has been stated by the respondents in the reply and particularly in the portion reproduced hereinabove, as at present, this writ petition could only be treated as redundant while leaving it open for the parties to take recourse to appropriate proceedings at the appropriate stage.
(3.) HOWEVER , in the interest of justice, it does appear appropriate and hence is observed that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner in conformity with the submissions as made in the reply as soon as they commence the process of promotion and to complete such process regarding the petitioner preferably within three months from the date of commencement.;