JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. L. Kurdu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Ete, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. L. Perme, learned Standing Counsel, Power Department representing respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. A. Apang, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. N. Anju, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. The petitioner by way of the present writ petition, assails the order, dated 10.02.2017, whereby the respondent No. 5 was promoted against the post of Work Charged (Group-C category) as W/C Khalasi (Computer Operator).

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, can be summarized as follows:-

(I) The petitioner was appointed as Skilled Computer Operator on 10.02.2001 in the Department of power and was posted at the office of the Executive Engineer (E), State Load Despatch Centre (for short, ‘SLDC’);

(II) The petitioner claims that in terms of seniority list of skilled and unskilled casual staffs published on 21.11.2016, petitioner and the respondent No.5 were placed at Serial No.21 and Serial No.26 respectively;

(III) The Executive Engineer (E) (SLDC & TD-II), Itanagar by a circular/Advertisement, dated 12.12.2016 intimated that a Trade-Test for filling up of one vacancy of W/C Khalasi shall be conducted in accordance with the Regulatory Scheme notified by No.CE (T&D)/EWC/V/21/7973-91, dated 9th December, 2004 and such test was decided to be held on 11 & 12th of January, 2017. The said circular/Advertisement further discloses that as per Trade wise preference and as per Trade wise seniority, the W/C Khalasi (Computer Operator) was given the highest preference. Though, subsequently, the exam was postponed on 2 occasions, the same was held on 12th & 13th January, 2017;

(IV) Thereafter, the result was declared on the basis of such Trade-Test and a merit list was published on 13.01.2017, wherein, the petitioner was placed at Serial No.1 and the respondent No. 5 was placed at Serial No.2 in terms of their merit. Thereafter, by the order, dated 10.02.2017, the respondent No. 5 was appointed to the said post being aggrieved the present petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned appointment order, dated 10.02.2017, on the following counts:-

(I) There was no declaration in the circular dated 10.02.2017 that the policy of reservation applicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh shall be applied in the present case and therefore, appointing an inferior candidate on the basis of reservation and on the basis of undisclosed criteria is an illegality and same violates petitioners right under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India;

(II) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the circular/advertisement will clearly show that there was no disclosure that policy of reservation shall be applied in the present case. It is submitted by the learned counsel that such action on the part of the respondents-state is contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. In support of such submission, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar-vs-Saifudaullah Khan & Ors., reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85;

(III) If, at all, it is admitted that policy of reservation can be applied, such policy cannot be applied in a single promotional post in the case in hand, asserts the learned counsel for the petitioner. In support of such contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh-vs-Faculty Association & Others; reported in AIR 1998 SC 1767.

(IV) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No. 5 was dismissed from service way back in the year, 2013 and therefore, her name ought not to have been considered by the respondents-state.

5. Per contra, the learned Advocate General submits

(I) The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconcei