The main legal point established is that the petitioner's eligibility for backlog promotion as a Senior Station Superintendent under the relevant Recruitment Rules and promotional policies should have been considered by the State respondents, and the application of the 100-point roster system to ignore this eligibility was held to be illegal.

With the help of the present application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is presently serving as a Station Superintendent in the department of Arunachal Pradesh State Transport, (hereinafter referred to as "the APST department") has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ/writs setting aside and quashing the order, dated, 23.04.2002 (Annexure P/7 to the writ petition), whereby the department concerned has promoted the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to the posts of Senior Station Superintendent, and commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Senior Station Superintendent with effect from 29.11.95.

2. In a nutshell, petitioner's case may be narrate as follows: The petitioner joined the APST department, on 22.03.76, as an Upper Division Clerk, he was promoted as an Assistant Station Superintendent on 28.02.83 and by order, dated 18.02.87 (Annexure P/l to the writ petition), the petitioner, who is a person from unreserved category, was promoted to the post of Station Superintendent. According to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh State Transport department (Group C posts) Recruitment Rules, 1986, the next promotional post for a Station Superintendent is Senior Station Superintendent. The post of Senior Station Superintendent has to be filed up by promotion from amongst the serving Station Superintendents of the department with six years of regular services in the grade. As the petitioner had been made Station Superintendent on 18.02.87, he became eligible for receiving promotion as Senior Station Superintendent on 18.02.93. On the basis of 40 point roster, which governed the promotion in the department concerned, the second promotional post of Senior Station Superintendent was meant for person of un-reserved category and the petitioner, being the senior-most Station Superintendent under the un-reserved category, ought to have been promoted accordingly. Ignoring this aspect of the matter, State respondents promoted three numbers of Station Superintendents to the posts of Senior Station Superintendent. However, one of the persons, who was so promoted, namely, Shri Tako Takey died in the year 1997. Though the post of Senior Station Superintendent, thus, fell vacant, State respondents did not promote the petitioner. Despite several representations made by the petitioner seeking promotion, the same was ignored by the taking recourse to the Government orders, dated 15.10.97 and 08.09.2001 (Annexure C and B respectively to the Affidavit-in-Opposition), which imposed a ban on filling up of non-plan posts. However, the Government changed its promotional policy by notification, dated, 01.02.2001 (Annexure P/9 to the writ petition), whereby promotions were required to be made on the basis of 100 -point roster. The State respondents, thereafter, promoted private respondents No. 4 and 5 by impugned order, dated, 23.04.2002 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition). The promotions were so accorded to the said two private respondents on the basis of the notification, dated, 01.02.2001, aforementioned, though this notification clearly states that the promotional policy of 100 - point roster will not apply in matters of determination of seniority and also clearance of backlogs. Since the petitioner became eligible for promotion as far back as in the year 1993 and post of a Senior Station Superintendent had become available in the year 1997 itself on account of the demise of Shri Tako Takey aforementioned, petitioner's case was a case of backlog promotion and the notification, dated, 01.02.2001, could not have been legally applied for according promotions to the two private respondents aforementioned.

3. The respondents have contested this case by filing their Affidavit-in-Opposition, their case, being briefly, stated, thus: Though the petitioner is the senior-most Station Superintendent as per the relevant seniority list and though a post of Senior Station Superintendent had