Paktum Basar vs Lingdum Taki - 2022 Supreme(Gau) 1066

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Gau) 1066

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)(ITANAGAR BENCH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, ROBIN PHUKAN, JJ.
Paktum Basar And 4 Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Lingdum Taki And 5 Ors – Respondent
WA 29 of 2019
Decided on : 02-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR.R L Thungon

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14, 16 – Head Constables of Police (Group-‘C’ Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1987 – Head Constables of Police (Group-‘C’ Posts) Recruitment Rules of 2010 – Rule 6 – Particulars for consideration – Persons aggrieved – Fundamental or legal rights – As common issues are involved in all six appeals, at instance of learned Senior Addl. Advocate General, Senior Advocate and Advocate(s) for parties, these appeals were heard and decided by this common judgment and order – Held, Court find submission of learned Addl. Advocate General and of learned Senior Counsel for appellants well merited and court accept same accordingly – Also, Court have considered submission of learned counsel for private respondents and in view of our above discussions and finding court find same devoid of merit, and accordingly, same stands repudiated – Court have also gone through case laws referred by learned counsel for private respondents and court find that ratio laid down therein are not applicable in all force to facts and circumstances here in this case, except, however, case of (supra), but instead of supporting case of respondents, said decision fortifies case of appellants, as discussed in foregoing paragraphs – Therefore, court do not wish to burden this judgment with discussion of cases by learned counsel for private respondents – Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

R.Phukan, J

1. These six intra-Court appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 24.11.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in (i) WP (C) 417 (AP)/2016 (Lingum Taki & 2 Ors. Vs. The State of A.P. & 3 Others, (ii) WP (C) 520 (AP)/2016 (Kanpong Wangphop & 24 Ors. Vs. The State of A.P. & 4 Others, and (iii) WP(C) 606(AP)/2016, (Hibu Raju & 12 Ors. Vs. The State of A.P. & 4 Others.

By the impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge had allowed the aforementioned writ petitions and set aside and quashed (i) the Cabinet Decision dated 11.05.2016, (ii) W.T. Message dated 25.07.2016, and (iii) Order dated 15.07.2016, and further directed the State respondents to ensure that a ‘Limited Departmental Examination’ (LDE for short) is conducted to fill up the vacant posts of Head Constables that arose from 2010 onward and which are to be filled up by LDE as per Head Constables of Police (Group-‘C’ Posts) Recruitment Rules of 2010, (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 2010”) and further directed that writ petitioners (i.e. the private respondents herein) should also be allowed to take part in selection process, as permitted by Rules of 2010.

2. As common issues are involved in all the six appeals, at the instance of the learned Senior Addl. Advocate General, Senior Advocate and Advocate(s) for the parties, these appeals were heard and decided by this common judgment and order.

The Factual Matrix:-

3. The contentious issues in these appeals relate to promotion of Constables to the next higher post of Head Constables in Police Department of Arunachal Pradesh. In order to fill up the vacant posts of Head Constables, the Police Department had initiated the process of promotion in the year 2008 as per the Head Constables of Police (Group-‘C’ Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 1987”). As per the Rule, 50% of the posts of Head Constables were to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst the Constables having minimum 3 (three) years of satisfactory service in the grade on the basis of merit which is to be assessed by holding departmental examination and the remaining 50% by promotion from amongst the Constables having minimum 5 (five) years of satisfactory service in the grade on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.

4. The said Rules of 1987, however, did not provide for any gender based reservation. But, vide letter dated 02.01.2007, the Director General of Police (DGP for short) forwarded a proposal to the State Government for earmarking 10% of the sanctioned strength in the cadre of Sub-Inspector (SI for short) and Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI for short) and Head Constable for women in the State Civil Police. The said proposal was approved by the Government and vide letter dated 01.02.2007 and the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Home conveyed the approval of the Government and urged the DGP to move a proposal for amendment of the Recruitment Rules.

5. But, before amendment of the Rules, the Asstt. Inspector General of Police (AIGP for short) by a WT Message dated 06.12.2007, proposed to conduct a selection process for preparation of a panel for promotion of Constables to Head Constables, and from Head Constables to ASI, against the existing and anticipated vacancies and willingness of the candidates was sought for from the eligible candidates, who had completed 3 (three) years of service as on 01.01.2008, for merit Examination for promotion of Constable to Head Constables.

6. Thereafter, LDE was conducted on 02.04.2008 in terms of the Government order dated 27.03.2008. Out of 481 Constables, 272 male Constables and 14 female Constables were found qualified and two separate select lists were prepared. Thereafter, on 20.12.2008 one Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC for short) was conducted and the said DPC had recommended the names of 64 Constables for promotion to Head Constables and the names of 13 others were kept in the wait list