1. Heard Mr. Khoda Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. Tagum Jamoh, learned standing counsel, Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, as well as Mr. Dugmar Kamduk, learned counsel for private respondent No. 5.

2. Both the petitioner, herein, and private respondent No. 5, are presently serving as Block Education Officer (BEO), Papum Pare District, under the Education Department.

3. It is stated that petitioner was appointed as Block Education Officer (BEO) in the year 2008 whereas private respondent No. 5 was so appointed in the year 2009. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that he is the senior-most BEO of Papum Pare District.

Be that as it may, the respondent-authorities were required to appoint one of the eligible Block Education Officer (BEO) to the post of District Project Coordinator under the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan in the Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

It is stated that the post of District Programme Coordinator (SSA) has some higher benefits and higher status in comparison to the post of Block Education Officer (BEO). Accordingly, it is the case of the petitioner that for the purpose of appointment to the post of District Programme Coordinator (SSA), all the eligible BEOs are entitled to be considered for the same. Although there is no specific service rules which provide for a procedure for appointment to the post of District Programme Coordinator (SSA), but, be that as it may, under general service law, a procedure which would be fair and transparent giving equal right to all, should be followed for such appointment. Merely, because the service rules do not provide for a particular procedure, it, by itself, cannot be construed to mean that no procedure satisfying the requisites of article 14 of the Constitution of India, is required to be adopted for the purpose.

4. It is further stated in the writ petition that although the petitioner had made an application, dated 2.11.2016, requesting the appropriate authority, to consider his case, for the purpose of such appointment to the post of District Programme Coordinator (SSA) but the same has not been given its due consideration. On the other hand, the respondent-authorities had adopted a procedure whereby the private respondent No. 5 had been appointed as the District Programme Coordinator (SSA) on the recommendation of MLA-cum-ex-Chief Minister. The said statement has been made in Paragraph No. 19 of the petition and it is stated that the said MLA has no role to play in the appointment to such public post and as such, the appointment of respondent No. 5 is illegal, per se. To substantiate the same, the petitioner has annexed the Note Sheet which was provided to him under the RTI Act, and the same goes to indicate the procedure adopted for the purpose of appointment of private respondent No. 5 to the post of District Programme Coordinator (SSA).

From the said Note Sheet, it is seen that there is a forwarding note dated 20.9.2016, whereby a proposal had been made for appointing the private respondent No. 5 as the District Programme Coordinator (SSA). Subsequently, the Note Sheet was forwarded to the Secretary (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, who had, again, through an endorsement, forwarded the same to the Minister concerned, for a decision. Thereafter, the Minister concerned mode an endorsement “Approved. Please issue order.”

It is further seen that the order of the Minister concerned as well as the departmental Secretary, are all, dated, 20.09.2016, which is indicative that the entire procedure relating to the appointment of private respondent No. 5 to the post of District Programme Coordinator (SSA) was made, on the same day.

It is, therefore, clear that the appointment of private respondent No. 5 to the post of District Programme Coordinator (SSA) has been made in pursuant to such procedure being adopted by the respondent-authorities.

5. On the prima facie reading of the Note Sheet, in question, it