- (1.) The appellant/petitioner (for short 'the appellant'), in the instant intra-court appeal, feeing aggrieved of the determination of the 'cost ratio' as 9.5% for the year 1987 as against 10.5% has impeached the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11th October, 2011 and has prayed for relief(s) in terms of prayer clause of the writ application.
(2.) In short, the indispensable essential material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are: that the appellant aggrieved of his non-consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer (AAO), against the vacancy for the year 1989-90, on the ground of having failed to maintain the 'cost ratio' for the year 1987, approached this Court by way of writ petition, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 11th April, 2008; treating the 'cost ratio' for the year 1987 as 10.5%. However, on a review of the judgment, the judgment and order dated 11th April, 2008 was recalled vide order dated 15th March, 2011 and after hearing both the parties, the writ application has been allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 11th October, 2011, which reads thus:- "Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to re-examine case of petitioner in the light of communication dt.11/11/2003 (Ann.A/2) and if cost ratio of petitioner on fresh reassessment falls within the cost ratio (09.5%) for the year 1987 he may be considered for promotion for vacancy year 1989-90 for the post of AAO and if cost ratio of petitioner does not meet out bench mark (09.5%) on re-assessment for the year 1987, he may be informed accordingly by a speaking order. Compliance be ensured within three months. No costs."
(3.) The appellant is aggrieved to the extent of determination made by the learned Single Judge with reference to the 'cost ratio' as 9.5% for the year 1987 while making an order for re-examination of the matter for his promotion in the light of the communication dated 11th November, 2003, wherein the incurred 'cost ratio' of the appellant has been determined as 9.04%.;