The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person has to be considered for promotion under the rules in force at the time when he became eligible for such promotion unless the subsequently made rules take away the right of consideration for such promotion given to the person under the old rules.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By the present application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners, while challenging promotion of the private Respondents, namely, Respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 to the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police (hereinafter referred to as "the DSP"), have sought for issuance of appropriate writ/writs setting aside the impugned order, dated 08.10.2001, whereby the private Respondents have been promoted, as indicated hereinbefore, and for further directions to the State Respondents to promote the Petitioners to the posts of DSP in terms of their actual inter-se seniority as per the seniority list of the Inspector of Police, as on 01.07.2001, by applying 40 point roster system.

2. I have heard Mr. R. Deka, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, and Mr. B.L. Singh, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 and 2. I have also heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents No. 3, 4 and 5.

3. The material facts, which emerge as undisputed in the present case are as follows:

The three writ Petitioners, namely, Shri Lohit Bhuyan, Shri Manik Gogoi and Shri Heramba Kumar Deori, were appointed as Sub-Inspectors of Police in the year 1978. After their entry into the service, the Sub-Inspector of Police (Group 'C posts) Recruitment Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Recruitment Rules of 1988") was notified on 15.12.88. According to this Rule, there were 46 posts of Inspector of Police and out of these posts, 75% were to be filled up by promotion from Sub-Inspectors of Police and the remaining 25% by deputation, failing which by way of promotion, the qualifying period of service for such promotion being five years of regular service in the grade of Sub-Inspector. While the Petitioner No. 1 and 2 aforementioned were promoted as inspectors of Police on 08.05.87, the Petitioner No. 3 was promoted as Inspector of Police on 01.07.87, the promotion of the Petitioners having been made following 40 point roster system as was in force at the relevant time.

4. By Notification, dated, 23.07.98, the Arunachal Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as "the Service Rules of 1989") was partially amended, the amended Rules being called the Arunachal Pradesh Police Service Amendment Rules, 1998. The combined effect of the Arunachal Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1989, read with the Arunachal Pradesh Police Service Amendment Rules, 1998, is that these rules govern, as per Rule 3 thereof, the service conditions of two classes of posts, namely, (a) SP/Commandant/Deputy Commandant (Armed Bn/I.R. Bn) Non IPS and selection grades and (b) Dy. Superintendent of Police and Assistant Commandant (Armed Bn/I.R. Bn.) As per Rule 5, contained in Part III (Method of Recruitment) of the Service Rules of 1989 read with Rule 12, contained in Part V (Recruitment by promotion), 50% of the substantive vacancies, which occur from time to time in the authorized permanent strength of service, such as in the posts of DSP, shall be filled up by direct recruitment and the rests 50% by way of promotion on the basis of merit-cum-seniority with due regard to seniority in the manner as indicated in Part V thereof Rule 12, contained in Part V, which relates to recruitment by promotion, while laying down the conditions of eligibility and procedure for making selection for promotion, it clearly specifies that the Selection Board shall consider from time to time the cases of officers, who have served, in the cadre of Inspector of Police, for not less than three years, and prepare a list of such officers recommending them for promotion to the posts of DSP taking, however, into account the actual vacancies at the time of selection and those, which are likely to occur during the year, the selection being based on merit-cum-seniority with due regard to the seniority.

5. Thus, Rule 12 aforementioned clearly shows that the Selection Board shall consider the cases of