JUDGMENT :

KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General of the State, assisted by Ms. P. Pangu, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the private respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

2. By filing this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the 10 petitioners herein, claiming common cause of action, have assailed the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (‘DPC’) in its minutes dated 24.7.2012, to regularize the promotion made to the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 from the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) [‘JE(C)’] to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) [‘AE(C)’] from the date of officiating promotion, i.e. 21.5.2005 and 31.8.2005/respectively. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of a direction upon the respondent-authorities to prepare a seniority list of AE(C) in the ratio of 50:50 (i.e. promotees and direct recruitees).

3. In this writ petition, it is projected that initially the Public Works Department was the only Engineering Department in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Subsequently, Power as well as Electrical Department was bifurcated from the Public Works Department. Thereafter, in the year 2004, Power Department and the Electrical Department were bifurcated and the Power Department was renamed as Department of Hydro Power Development (‘DoHPD’). On 24.8.2006, the petitioners were selected and appointed as direct recruitees in the post of AE(C) in the DoHPD. It is projected that when DoHPD was created, no direct recruitment was held, but 16 AE(C) were appointed in the DoHPD on officiating promotions made in the year 1997. A DPC dated 23.7.2003 was held for promotion to the post of AE(C), and the minutes of the DPC was challenged by the aggrieved persons by filing WP (C) 238(AP)/2003 and WA No. 449/2005, which were subsequently withdrawn. Thus, the DPC held on 23.7.2003 was implemented and 9 Nos. of JE(C) were promoted to the next higher post of AE(C). The provisional seniority list of AE(C) was published on 21.8.2007, wherein the names of the petitioners were at Serial Nos. 23 to 32, respectively. Subsequently, by DPC minutes dated 24.7.2012, the names of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were recommended for promotion to the post of AE(C) with retrospective effect from 21.5.2005 and 31.8.2005, respectively, which was implemented and the said actions of the State have been assailed in this writ petition.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no service rules has been framed for the JE(C) and AE(C) in the DoHPD and, therefore, the DoHPD was following the Assistant Engineer (Civil) (Group ‘B’) Recruitment Rules, 1991 (‘1991 Rules’) which envisaged filling up 50% posts of AE(C) by way of direct recruitment and 50% posts were to be filled up by promotion from eligible JE(C), out of which it was envisaged that 80% of vacancies would be reserved for Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe candidates. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents in connection with WP (C) No. 543(AP)/2005 - D. Ete vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh, it is submitted that the stand of the State was to the effect that (i) in the year 2005, the cadre strength of AE(C) in DoHPD was 31, (ii) that year-wise vacancy was 12 in the year 1994; 8 in the year 1997 and 11 in the year 2005, (iii) that as per recruitment rules, 50% of 31 posts will be 15+1=16 as first vacancy goes to promotees and 15 posts will go to Direct Recruitment and (iv) that in the year 1997, 20 vacant posts of AE(C) were filled up on officiating basis in exigency of work. Accordingly, it is submitted that the State respondents had already filled up more than 50% posts of AE(C) by ad hoc promotions in the year 1997 and, therefore, illegality was committed in further promoting the responde