JUDGMENT AND ORDER : HRISHIKESH ROY, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.J Atia, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Goswami, the learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the respondents 1 - 4. The private respondent Nos. 5 - 9 have not however entered their appearance. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Model Supervisor on 27.1.1992 (Annexure-1) in the Directorate of River Research Station, under the Water Resources Department. By virtue of his long service of 18 years, the Model Supervisor had acquired the eligibility for promotion, to the post of Sr. Observer. His grievance relates to the Notification dated 27.7.2010 (Annexure-7) whereby, the respondents 5 - 9 were promoted to the cadre of Sr. Observer and posted at the River Research Station, Basistha. 3. The learned Counsel Mr. A.J Atia submits that Service Rules governing promotion to the post of Sr. Observer, have not been framed by the Water Resources Department but the promotion is governed by the Resolution dated 15.7.1987 (Annexure-4). As can be seen, the eligibility requirement for promotion is 15 years' service for the Model Supervisor and 12 years' service for the Laboratory and Statistical Assistants. Thus with his 18 years' service, the petitioner has the requisite experience to be considered for promotion. He is thus aggrieved by consideration shown only for the Laboratory Technicians, while the Model Supervisors like the petitioner, have been wholly ignored. 4. The learned Counsel further submits that the authorities must ensure equitable consideration for the eligible employees in the two feeder stream and should not allow promotion exclusively from amongst the serving Laboratory Technician, as has been done by the impugned order. 5. In response, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Mr. B. Goswami concedes that Service Rules have not been framed for promotion to the post of Sr. Observer but he submits that the criteria followed for promotion is based upon the Resolution dated 15.7.1987 (Annexure-4), which has been duly approved by the Personnel Department. The averments made in paragraph 4 & 5 of the counter affidavit are read by Mr. Goswami to project that, as per the opinion of the Addl. Chief Engineer of the River Research Station, the Laboratory Technicians should be preferred for promotion to the post of Sr. Observer and on this basis, the promotion of the five respondents is contended to be justified, by Mr. Goswami. 6. The learned Addl. Goswami to project that, as per the opinion of the Addl. Chief Engineer of the River Research Station, the Laboratory Technicians should be preferred for promotion to the post of Sr. Observer and on this basis, the promotion of the five respondents is contended to be justified, by Mr. Goswami. 6. The learned Addl. Advocate General further points out that the petitioner claims to be the senior most ST(P) category employee but he does not say he is the senior-most amongst everyone in the feeder cadre of the either stream. He also submits that, promotions were granted to the Reserve Category employees under the Roster Point 11 and Roster Point 12 and accordingly the unjust denial of promotion as alleged by the petitioner, is stoutly refuted by the Govt. Counsel. 7. The above submission made by the rival counsel have been duly considered and the relevant records have been perused. What is significant here is that the petitioner does not project anywhere that he is senior to the promoted colleagues. Therefore, the promotion of the private respondents cannot be faulted, on the ground of seniority. 8. In so far as the promotion being granted only to the Laboratory Technicians in the feeder cadre and promotion not considered for the Model Supervisor, the only justification for this might be the opinion of the Addl. Chief Engineer of the River Research Station, who issued the advisory for preferring Laboratory Technicians, for the post of Sr. Observer. But at the same time, it is clear enough that the Model Supervisors with requisite experience are also entitled to be considered for promotion, to the post of Sr. Observer. 9. The preference for the Laboratory Technicians may be justified for the post of Sr. Observer but neither the Resolution of 15.7.1987 nor the opinion of the Addl. Chief Engineer of the River Research Station, rule out the avenue of promotion, for the Model Supervisor. It can be seen from paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that vacancies in the cadre of Sr. Observer is available in the River Research Station and accordingly even while declining to interfere with the impugned promotion of the private respondents, the authorities are duty bound to consider promotion for the long serving Model Supervisor. When the exercise is undertaken, the cases of all eligible Model Supervisors and others in the feeder cadre, must receive due consideration. 10. Observer is available in the River Research Station and accordingly even while declining to interfere with the impugned promotion of the private respondents, the authorities are duty bound to consider promotion for the long serving Model Supervisor. When the exercise is undertaken, the cases of all eligible Model Supervisors and others in the feeder cadre, must receive due consideration. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, direction is issued to consider promotion of the petitioner and other eligible persons in the feeder cadre, to the vacancies of Sr. Observer in accordance with the applicable norms. With this direction, the case stands closed.