1. Heard Mr. Tony Pertin, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of State respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

None has appeared on behalf of the private respondent Nos. 4 to 12; in WP(C) No.61(AP)/2014, as well as on behalf of private respondent Nos. 4 to 11; in WP(C) No.329(AP)/2014. The name of private respondent No. 10 of WP(C) No.61(AP)/2014, has been deleted from the Cause-Title in pursuance to order passed by this court on 20.10.2014 in the said writ proceeding.

2. The petitioners have been serving as Constables (Civil Police) in the Department of Arunachal Pradesh Police, and they have completed more than 10 years of services as Constables. As per the Recruitment Rules, namely, Head Constables of Police (Group-C) Recruitment Rules, 1987, the post of Head Constables is to be filled up at the ratio of 50% from amongst the constables having minimum 3 years of satisfactory service in the grade on the basis of a merit examination and the remaining 50% by promotion from amongst the constables having minimum 5 years of satisfactory service in the grade on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The said Rules, however> does not provide for any reservation or quota for the lady constables. Vide communication dated 6.12.2007, the Assistant Inspector General of Police (E), PHQ, Itanagar, proposed to conduct merit examinations for preparation of penal list for further promotion of constables to Head Constables and from Head Constables to Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI, in short) in Civil Police against the existing and anticipated vacancies. Accordingly, as many as 481 constables including the petitioners appeared in the said merit examination on 2.4.20008 out of which 271 constables were found qualified for promotion to the rank of Head Constables including the present writ petitioners. After pronouncement of the result of the said merit examination, 30 numbers of eligible constables were called for the Physical Efficiency Test (PET, in short). However, the said PET was postponed, for unknown reasons, when the eligible short listed candidates were actually waiting for the said test. It is alleged that without conducting the PET, the Assistant Inspector General of Police (E), PHQ, Itanagar, vide order dated 13.1.2009 appointed 54 numbers of constables of Civil Police to the rank of Head Constables w.e.f. 26.12.2008. Thereafter, one of the petitioners through RTI obtained information that the respondent authorities instead of calling for the re-physical test, prepared the list of candidates for promotion without conducting the re-physical test. The petitioners also learnt that a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC, in short) was constituted for considering the promotion of constables to Head Constables, on merit basis. The said DPC was conducted on 26.12.2008 and as per the said DPC, there were 122 posts of Head Constables lying vacant, of which 61 posts were kept for merit quota and rest 61 posts were kept for seniority quota. The DPC recommended altogether 64 candidates for promotion to the rank of Head Constables and further recommended the cases of 13 constables to be kept in the waiting list as per the merit. The DPC also recommended 6(Six) names of lady constables to be promoted to the posts of Head Constables and placed them in roster point from 56 to 61. It is also alleged that the Recruitment Rules does not provide for any reservation or quota for lady constables. Moreover, the lady constables whose names have been recommended for promotion were placed much below to the petitioners in the merit list. The respondent authorities vide subsequent orders have promoted as many as 19 Nos. of constables including 3 lady constables giving them promotion to the rank of Head Constables vide orders dated 13.1.2009, 20.7.2009 and 27.8.2009. Again vide order dated 24.4.2010, 2 constables have been promoted to the rank of Head Constables one of which was a l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document