The matter pertains to promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Transport Department. The petitioner is an officer of the Transport department and presently serving as Assistant Commissioner. He has challenged the minutes of the selection committee meeting held on 27.3.2010, by which the respondent No.8 has been recommended for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner. As recorded in the order dated 19.8.2011, it is the case of the petitioner that the selection Committee did not consider the directions contained in the judgement and order dated 24.5.2011 passed in WP(C) No. 5666/2000 and WP(C) NO. 7864/2003. By the said judgement and order it was directed as follows :- “In the result and for the Foregoing reasons, it is hereby held that K.C. Hazarika shall be treated as senior to Bipulananda Pathak and J.C. Handique and as far as the inter se seniority between Bipulananda Pathak and J.C. handique is concerned, Bipulananda Pathak shall be treated as senior to J.C. Handique in the ‘cadre’ of DEO. The impugned order, dated 09.09.2003, passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Transport, is accordingly set aside and quashed and the State respondents are hereby directed to draw up the gradation list in terms of the observations made and directions given above.” 2. According to the petitioner without correctly assigning the seniority position to the petitioner, the selection committee conducted the selection and consequently recommended the respondent No.8, although he is junior to him. 3. As recorded in the order dated 9.9.2011 and indicated in the minutes of the selection committee, it is the case of the respondents that since the selection is based on merit with due regard to seniority, the petitioner cannot harp upon only on seniority irrespective of merit that was assessed by the selection committee. Thus, the issue involved in the writ petition is as to whether in terms of the aforesaid judgement and order, the petitioner was assigned correct seniority position and the selection committee conducted the selection as per the criteria of merit with due regard to seniority. 4. I have heard Mr. P. Pathak, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Changkakoti, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State Counsel as well as Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the respondent No.8. While Mr. 4. I have heard Mr. P. Pathak, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Changkakoti, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State Counsel as well as Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the respondent No.8. While Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the pleadings in the writ petition submits that the selection committee committed manifest error of facts and law in not taking into account the relevant factors into consideration. He also submits that the ACRs of the petitioner for two years being incomplete as there was no review of the assessment made by the initiating authority, the selection committee could not have taken into account the said incomplete ACRs, depriving the petitioner a fair consideration. 5. Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State counsel has produced the minutes of the selection committee, in terms of which it is the respondent No.8, who has been recommended for the post of Deputy Commissioner, Transport. He submits that it is incorrect to say that the petitioner was shown junior to the respondent No.8. As reflected in the minutes of the selection committee, the petitioner was placedat Sl. No.1 and thus, he was shown senior to all other incumbents, who were considered for promotion. 6. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8 submits that since the selection committee duly assessed the respective merits of the candidates, in absence of any allegation of malafide and colourable exercise of power, the writ Court will not sit on appeal over the findings recorded by the selection committee. 7. Since the questions relating to appreciation of ACRs by the selection committee have been raised, Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State Counsel was requested to produce the ACRs of the Officers whose cases were considered by the selection committee. According to the respondents, the ACRs are now misplaced. However, it is contended that the selection committee duly considered the ACRs of the candidates and it was only after the recommendation that was made, the ACRs were misplaced while processing the file through the judicial department. 8. In the application seeking vacation of the interim order filed by the respondent No.8 i.e. MC No. 2619/2011, the respondent No.8 has contended that since the selection committee has recommended his name for promotion, the interim order should be vacated, enabling the necessary follow up action towards promotion of the respondent No.8. 8. In the application seeking vacation of the interim order filed by the respondent No.8 i.e. MC No. 2619/2011, the respondent No.8 has contended that since the selection committee has recommended his name for promotion, the interim order should be vacated, enabling the necessary follow up action towards promotion of the respondent No.8. In the said proceeding, the minutes of the Selection Board under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, has been brought on record. It appears that the selection committee was comprised of the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary (Personal Department), Principal Secretary, Transport Department and Commissioner of Transport. The selection committee considered 4 (four) Officers including the petitioner and the respondent No.8. The petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 1 while the respondent No.8 at Sl. No.2. It was in that order of seniority, the case of the petitioner along with others including the respondent No.8 was considered.Thus, it is not correct to say that the petitioner was shown junior to other officers. In fact, he was placed at Sl. No.1. However, on assessment of merit, the selection committee assigned the merit position No.1 to the respondent No.8, merit position No.2 to one Shri K.C. Hazarika and the petitioner was assigned merit position at Sl. No.3 while one Srhi D.J. Chakraborty at Sl. No.4. On merit (ACRs), while the petitioner was assigned 13 marks, the respondent No.8 was assigned 19. On seniority, both of them were assigned 2.5 marks and total came to 15.5 and 21.5 respectively. 9. In the above circumstances, the writ Court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit on appeal over the decision of the expert body like selection committee. However, a doubt arises on the failure of the State Govt. to produce the ACRs of the incumbents, which were sought to be perused by this Court for prima facie satisfaction. While it is the case of the petitioner that the ACRs would have reflected the correct position, it is the case of the respondents, both official and private, that the ACRs have been perused by the selection committee and leaving aside the availability and non-availability of the same, the recommendation of the selection committee is required to be implemented. 10. While it is the case of the petitioner that the ACRs would have reflected the correct position, it is the case of the respondents, both official and private, that the ACRs have been perused by the selection committee and leaving aside the availability and non-availability of the same, the recommendation of the selection committee is required to be implemented. 10. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the ACRs were, in fact, placed before the selection committee or not or whether the selection committee was furnished with only a statement of Officers reflecting the gradings given to them in the relevant ACRs. Although, Mr. Talukdar, learned State Counsel was given sufficient time to produce the ACRs but he submits that the ACRs are not traceable. Even today also he submits that the ACRs are not traceable and must have been misplaced somewhere. 11. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of remanding the matter back to the Chief Secretary of the State totake a decision in the matter taking into account all the relevant facts and in accordance with law. While doing so, he may associate the other members of the selection Committee. Let an appropriate decision be taken, as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate not later then 30.6.2012. This time limit is prescribed in view of the fact that there has been considerable delay in making the promotions. Till then, interim order passed earlier shall continue. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________