I.A. Ansari, J.

1. We have heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel, for the Appellant, and Ms. G. Deka, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. We have also heard Mr. P.D. Nair, learned Counsel, for the Respondent No. 4. BACKGROUND FACTS:

2. When the (Group B) General and Central Service (Law Officer-cum-Junior Draftsman Post) Recruitment Rules, 1979, (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1979 Rules') were in force, Respondent No. 4 herein, namely, Shri Hajulu Pulu, was, initially, appointed, without holding any selection process, as a Law Officer-cum-Junior Draftsman, in the Department of Law and Judicial, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, on contractual basis, on a consolidated pay of Rs. 9000/-, with effect from 23.05.2001. Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 was appointed as Law Officer on ad hoc basis, with effect from 27.12.2002, against a vacant sanctioned post by order, dated 27.12.2002, issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. This ad hoc appointment too was made without holding any selection process whatsoever.

3. In course of time, the 1979 Rules came to be substituted by the Law Officer-cum-Junior Draftsman Recruitment Rules, 2004, (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2004 Rules') After the 2004 Rules came into force, the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (in short, 'the APPSC') carried out a recruitment process under the 2004 Rules and, having held a regular selection process, recommended the present Appellant, namely, Shri Dani Belo, for appointment as Law Officer-cum-Junior Draftsman leading to his regular appointment to the said post by order, dated 01.10.2005, issued by the Secretary, Law and Judicial, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. At the time, when the said regular recruitment process for appointment to the post of Law Officer-cum-Junior Draftsman was conducted by the APPSC, Respondent No. 4 chose not to participate in the regular selection process and he, thus, remained an ad hoc appointee against the sanctioned post of Law Officer without feeling any regular selection process; whereas the Appellant herein came to be appointed, on the basis of a regular selection process, as a Law Officer-cum-Junior Draftsman.

4. After, however, the direct recruitment of the Appellant as a Law Officer-cum-Junior Draftsman on regular basis, as indicated hereinabove, had taken place, a move was initiated for regularization of the ad hoc service of the Respondent No. 4 and, in this regard, Secretary, Law and Judicial, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, wrote, vide his letter, dated 08.12.2006, to the Secretary, APPSC, for relaxation of the provisions of the 2004 Rules enabling the Government to regularize the service of the Respondent No. 4 to the post of Law Officer-cum-Junior Draftsman by holding a Departmental Promotion Committee (in short, 'DPC'). 5. Thus, though appointed on ad hoc basis without any regular selection process against the sanctioned post as a Law Officer, Respondent No. 4's regularization was sought to be done after coming into force of the 2004 Rules by holding a DPC. The request made by the Secretary, Law and Judicial, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, by his letter, dated 08.12.2006, was not accepted or agreed to by the APPSC and this decision of the APPSC was communicated to the Government by letter, dated 17.01.2007, issued by the Secretary, APPSC.

5. However, the State Government went ahead with the constitution of the DPC, which held its meeting, on 27.04.2007, and recommended regularization of the ad hoc appointment of Respondent No. 4 as Law Officer-cum- Junior Draftsman with effect from 27.12.2002, i.e., even before the 2004 Rules had actually come into force.

6. In effect, the service of Respondent No. 4 was regularized, as indicated above, without adhering to the essential provisions of recruitment of the 2004 Rules, though the 2004 Rules had already come into force. In order to meet this incongruent situation, the recommendations of t