Heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Geeta Deka, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of State Respondents No. 1 to 4, as well as Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Mili, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of private Respondent No. 5.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the appointment of Respondent No. 5 to various offices who was originally appointed as an Assistant Engineer under the Public Works Department in the State of Arunachal Pradesh on Ad-hoc basis and whose services was regularized in the grade of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the same Department. The Respondent No. 5, thus, holds a substantive post of Assistant Engineer under the Public Works Department.

3. Vide order dated 26.03.2007, issued by the Secretary, Urban Development & Housing, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, the Respondent No. 5 was appointed on officiating capacity as Deputy Director in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- in the Department of UD & Housing, Amnachal Pradesh. Again vide order dated 07.07.2008, the Respondent No. 5 was appointed as an Executive Magistrate and immediately, thereafter, vide order dated 20.10.2008, the Respondent No. 5 was appointed as an Additional District Magistrate. The same Respondent No. 5 was conferred with the powers of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, vide Notification dated 25.08.2009.

4. A post of Chief Estate Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 37,400 - 67,000/- was created vide order No. DAD-21/2011 dated 31.03.2011 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The Respondent No. 5 has been appointed as the Chief Estate Officer.

5. According to the petitioners, the Respondent No. 5 who is the Civil Engineer (B.E.) is holding substantive post of Assistant Engineer under the Department of Public Works Department, was sent to the Urban Development & Housing, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, on temporary basis, and then brought under the control of Administration Department, without any sanction of law. The elevation of Respondent No. 5 from post to post and from pay scale of Rs. 10,000/- to pay scale of Rs. 37,400/- has not been through any publicly known or legally permissible mode of appointment/promotion or other known method of recruitment in public office. Thus, the appointment of Respondent No. 5 in the post of Chief Estate Officer is illegal and liable to be set aside and quashed.

6. The Respondent No. 2, Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Law & Judicial Department, has averred that the impugned Notifications were merely administrative arrangement issued in the exigency of public interest for specific purpose. Therefore, this Court may not interfere invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction.

7. The Respondent No. 5, Sri Talo Potom, has averred that the post of Chief Estate Officer is a cadre post and has no link with the cadre post of parent Department i.e. Assistant Engineer (EG). The post of Chief Estate Officer is clearly a substantive post and the Respondent No. 5 has been appointed to the said post by de-cadring from his original post of Deputy Director (Department of UD & Housing) in the Department of District Administration. This appointment is neither on deputation nor has he got it from seniority of earlier cadre post in the parent Department. The establishment of Chief Estate Officer was done as per the procedure followed by the State Government from time to time. This Department is new and Recruitment Rules is yet to be framed.

8. Preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents with regard to the maintainability of this writ petition. It is averred that the petitioner's right is not at all affected by the impugned order. The petitioners are neither borne in the same cadre/ promotional cadre with that of Respondent No. 5, nor this writ petition is a PIL, to challenge the impugned orders. The Petitioner No. 1 has be