PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA, J

Heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/appellants. Also heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4, 5, 9 & 12 and also Mr. D. Soki, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1,2 & 3.

1. The present writ appeal is filed by the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 24 (AP)/2010, whose claim for seniority over the private respondents No. 4 to 13 was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 08.03.2013.

2. The petitioners/appellants as per their petition are holding the post of Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer under the Directorate of Accounts & Treasuries, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Initially they were substantively appointed as Inspecting Auditor/Sub-Treasury Officer through a selection process. They were promoted to the post of Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer on ad hoc basis in regular vacancies during the period between 20.04.1990 and 28.09.1994. During the year 1992 to 1996, some of the private respondents were appointed to the post of Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) and some others through direct recruitment. The petitioners/appellants completed their regular service of 3 (three) years in the feeder cadre. However, due to in-action of the State respondents, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was not constituted to consider the cases of the petitioners/appellants for regular promotion during those years. In the year 1996 only, the DPC was convened and the DPC recommended regularization of the ad hoc promotion of the petitioners/appellants with effect from 20.05.1996 i.e the date of DPC. The petitioners/appellants were accordingly placed below the private respondents in the provisional seniority list of Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer. On consideration of the representations of the petitioners/appellants, their seniority over the private respondents were restored. But in the final gradation list published in the year 2009, the petitioners/appellants were placed below the private respondents in the seniority list.

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioners/appellants preferred the writ petition praying for restoration of the seniority on the ground that the State respondents acted illegally in not constituting the DPC soon after they became eligible for promotion for the post of Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer and as such, they were entitled to have their seniority counted from the date they completed the regular service of 3 years as required under the rules in the feeder cadre. However, the learned Single Judge rejected the challenge to the prospective promotion and denial of retrospective promotion to the post of Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer and accordingly, this writ appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition has been preferred.

4. The private respondents filed their affidavit-in-opposition denying the claim made in the writ petition by the petitioners/appellants. It is their contention that in terms of the The Arunachal Pradesh (Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer) Recruitment Rules, 1984, superseded vide notification No. DA/FIN/B/24/76 (ptd) dated 14.05.1993 by the Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer (Group B) Recruitment Rules, 1993 (herein after referred to as 1984/1993 Rules) LDCE was conducted by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) on various dates ranging from the year 1990 to 1994, the private respondents appeared in the said LDCE and also applied for direct recruitment and having qualified in the said examination, the private respondents were appointed to the post of Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer on various dates. It was also contended that there was a specific clause in the appointment letters of the petitioners/appellants that their ad hoc appointment would not confer them any right to claim regular appointment in the post of Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer. The 1984/1993 Ru