TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Bannerjea, assisted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE writ petitioner in the instant case has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus for two reliefs : - - (a) For consideration of his case for promotion from E - 7 to E - 8 Grade with effect from May, 1992; and (b) For consideration of his case for promotion from M - 2 to M -3 Grade with effect from June, 1995. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has already superannuated and therefore, in the event of success, the petitioner would be entitled to only monetary benefits.
(3.) IN the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated as follows : "I further say that the contention of -the petitioner is denied because as per the criteria/methodology approved/ decided by the competent Board the promotion proceedings were carried out by the Selection -cum -DPC by making its recommendation in promotion from E -7 to E -8 grade (Mining) in favour of 140 candidates finalized/approved by the competent authority on 16.6.1991. As per the relevant rules/decision, the panel was drawn in order of merit on the basis of total marks obtained as per the norms. The officer securing in the highest marks was placed at the top of the panel and remaining officer in the descending order according to the marks obtained. And as a result the petitioner was empanelled at Sl. No. 64. Since, the release of promotion order is subject to Vigilance Safety and departmental clearance and availability of vacancies during the validity period of the panel, the promotion orders were released in respect of candidates upto Sl. No. 60 of the panel. Once more it is denied that there was vacancy in E -8 grade Mining during validity period of the panel i.e, upto 16.6.1992. Again the Selection -cum -DPC for promotion from E -7 to E -8 grade had considered the promotion case of the petitioner in December 92 and Shri Prasad was empanneled at Sl. No. 83 out of the total 86 empanneled case. But promotion order could be released only upto Sl. No. 39 against the vacancies available during the operative period of the panel and due to non -availability of the vacancy during the operative period of the panel the promotion could not be released in respect of the petitioner. Thus what appears from the statements made in the counter affidavit is that the case of the petitioner was already considered.;